Well the big day is almost here. In a matter of hours the American electorate will head for the polls in what has been the most unusual and unique election I have ever seen. So here is my final prediction for the presidential contest of 2008. No doubt many of you disagree with it. That's okay, I sometimes wonder myself. But I just can't shake this gut feeling that we are in for an upset the likes of which have not been seen since 1948 when Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey.

In fact that election holds many similarities to our own. Spirits in the Democratic party where low in 1948. Just two years earlier the Republicans had retaken both Houses of congress and a majority of the nation's govenorships. Truman was terribily unpopular and the world was facing troubled times. Europe was being rebuilt following the devistation of World War II. The Soviet Union was on the rise and along with it the cold war. Many were worried about finances after the passage of the Marshal plan and the cost of occupation of the defeated Axis nations. And the beginings of racial tensions with the first ripples of the civil rights movement was under way.

In the midst of all this all the presidential predictions, both with and without public opinion polls, held that Thomas Dewey would win in a landslide. He was the candidate that represented a new direction, change if you will, and was from the eastern elite establishment. He avoided controvesial issues and spoke in generalities. The polls constantly had Truman behind, sometimes by double digits. The pundits of the day had written Truman off as Dewey's lead was insurmountible. The press by the fall had declared the race over. Many on Truman's staff believed it was over and even the president's own wife had her doubts. The only one that believed in victory was Truman. On election night Truman won by 5 points and over 100 electoral votes. The pundits and the polls where wrong. Dewey did not sell.

I look at today's polls and I am very distrubed by what I see. Not that McCain is losing in them but in how they are conducted. I averaged together many of the national polls over the last few days and took their standard deviation. It was aweful. If I had those results in a lab I'd throw them out and look back to see where I had made an error. And they change too fast. Gallup goes from a 2 point race to a 10 point race in a matter of three days? I don't buy that. There are too many polls (300% more than last year) and they are all way too varied. The range is too great. The internals are also troubling. I believe they have over sampled Democratic support or overestimated Democratic turnout compared to McCain turnout. We have no idea what turnout will be like and I can tell you this, the Republican base is as fired up as I've ever seen it. We also know how bias our media is to Obama, along with most of the beltway. The fact that they conduct all the polling also concerns me. In short I feel the polling data is not worth much. I could be wrong but for now I don't buy it.

And in all this there is still the Bradley effect. How big will it be? I don't know. I've seen the studies that say its not a factor but I don't think its something you can test because even in a study people don't want to be thought of as a racist. Not only that but we've never seen it on national scale before. The presidential race is unique after all. Very liberal candidates tend not to get elected in America to the White House and Obama certainly falls into that catigory. But I don't think people want to be branded as racists for not supporting him.

McCain and Palin have a real chance. The GOP base, Republicans, conservatives, evangelicals, Catholics, larger number of Jewish and hispanic voters, older Americans, some of the youth vote (being a part of it I can tell you McCain has some support here, not as much as Obama but will they turnout in the numbers the media claims they will?), whites, small business owners, blue collared Americans, rural voters, and those from small towns could just help carry him to victory. As I've said this election is wild. There are so many varibles. No incumbent, people angry with government across the board, both tickets very unorthodoxed, two wars, a slowing economy, etc.

In short I don't know who will win. But I believe if we are going to see a suprise, an upset, a McCain win, this is it. A map like this could very well be the case tomorrow night. We could also lose to Obama. I don't think it will be a landslide but it is possible. Obama victories in Ohio, Virginia, Pennslyvania, and Nevada are certainly a very real possibility. But this election is now in the hands of the American people. May God's will be done no matter who wins. Good luck to all.

CR...I appreciate your positivity immensely....I will just say that I hope that you are right and I am wrong. If my map is right, your state will vote for the loser for the first time in a VERY long time. I just can't see Obama winning Missouri.

And by the way...He knows what He is doing...I think Obama is "the one" (without the capital)...which is why he has to win...I think and hope you know what I mean when I say that...

By:ajv51 (R-KY) 2008-11-03 @ 19:36:50

ConservRerp-I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one out there with the same gut feeling you have.

I think McCain can squeak by. The battleground state polls have been trending his way as of late. In addition, the undecideds will break for McCain, as they see Obama as the quasi-incumbent.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-03 @ 19:49:08

I've enjoyed reading your posts, CR, and also must honor your 'positivity'. That said, I think Catholics are trending to the Dems. this year, and Obama will win a larger proportion of Hispanics and Jews than did Kerry in '04. Check out 538.com - he has the most likely McCain scenarios.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-03 @ 20:02:38

My friends and fellow Republicans I tell you this we are not done yet. This race is not over and won't be until the people of this great land are done voting tomorrow. I know very well that we could lose. Obama has a lot of money and the media on his side. I don't much buy their polls though. I heard Scott Rasmussen today say not to believe the polls, his own included! Said that their methods where flawed and that they have way overestimated Democratic turnout.

Now that said it boils down to a numbers game and in that respect he is correct. This is all about turnout. Either our base comes our in strong numbers and we win or we let defeatism overtake us and we loose. You see we can still pull off a win here. I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow and I don't know who is going to win. I have doubts but I also have that gut feeling that we can do this.

Let me just say this, I have never felt the energy I felt today when I went to Sarah Palin's rally in Jefferson City this morning along with 17,000 other Missourians. The base of the party is fired and motivated. All we need to do now is vote, vote, vote. We won't win everthing but I think we can hold the White House and avoid a blood bath in Congress. This has been a strange election that defied all the odds so far and I don't see why a suprise is impossible. Of course that could also mean we elect the most liberal ticket ever nominated. I just can't say.

All we can do is vote. We pray and work for victory. We also prepare for defeat. I'm not going to sugar-coat it. A lose tomorrow will make the next 2 to 4 years very difficult. But we've been through rough times before. We've survived and we'll get through this too. Never give up, never surrend, keep fighting even if we have only 100 House seats and 30 Senate seats! Never let them defeat us at the core of who we are!

Sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan. Then again sometimes we don't have to go through the Carter at all....

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-03 @ 20:04:05

Well thank you windindy, I try to stay positive. You've been a good debating partner too and I've enjoyed our many exchanges over the last few months. Win or lose, I'm glad we've been able to maintain civility. We'll just see what tomorrow brings.

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-04 @ 00:11:23

CR I'm disappointed, I thought you would have it closer than this!
I guess hope is a powerful feeling.
I should know as it's skewered some of my results before.
Hopefully not this time!
:)
Without sounding smug I wish you well, as a person, not politically!
You have been a nice person to blog with on this site, when some haven't.
Although I don't agree with you I do respect your views.
What's the word on Missouri?
How close is it there?
Will Columbia go this time, sorry can't remember the county, is it Boone?
If we win, I won't rub it in to you I promise, some of the others on this site, well...

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-04 @ 00:16:30

CR I "hope" your "wright"

By:jamespol (I-MO) 2008-11-04 @ 01:23:45

Yo, CR youyr map is incorrect.. but oh well it is possible.

To CR, and everyone else.. I will miss ya all, even tho I was not a major impact on the site due to working a lot since the summer.. but keep in touch with me..

jamescanmo@gmail.com

CR and liberalrocks, remember, hillary will save us in 2012

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-04 @ 07:38:36

Friends I have just voted. Man the polls where packed but luckly I got up early and I was only about the 25th person in line. So now I've done my job and all I can do. I've cast my ballot for McCain and Palin. Now we wait and see what the rest of the day brings.

You know demboy you just never know how things are going to break on election day. Pollsters have gotten it wrong before in both 1948 and 1980. I think this election was so different and the polling methods so inaccurate that we'll just have to wait until tonight to see what the people decided. Anything's possible. And you're right, hope is a powerful feeling. I'll always have it too.

And thanks so much for those kind words demboy. Its been fun to blog with you too. I also agree that even though we don't have the same views I can respect you and I've enjoyed many of our exchanges. If somehow we win today I won't rub it in your face either. No need for anything like that. If we lose, we'll we just rally around our remaining leaders and move on.

As for Missouri I think its heading for the McCain-Palin column. I believe that suburban and rural Missouri are going to be heavy for McCain and that Obama will not have enough in St Louis or Kansas to over take the rest of the state. That eitehr means Missouri is still the bellweather and McCain wins or it will be the first time since 1956 that we've sided with the losing ticket. Columbia is always Democratic and will go Obama. As for the county, Boone, I'm not sure. Kerry did not take it but Gore did. I'd say it may be one of the few counties Obama carries in Missouri. We'll know after tonight.

LOL Liberalrocks and welcome to the Republican fold! See we're not so scary, lol. Today's the big day my friend and I'm banking on the American people. We'll see tonight. Actually I'm glad I have a full schedual until about 5 or 6 this evening. I'll stay busy but man will it be hard to focus! Hey even if we lose, and there is still a chance for victory, we'll just regroup and come back for the next round in 2010 and 2012. After seeing Sarah in person yesterday I can tell you she'll be back.

Ah James what a crazy 18 months we've had eh? You'll be please to see that I'm fairly confident that Jay Nixon will win the race for govenor here in Missouri. Kenny just doesn't have the name recognition and Steelman damaged him in some of the southern counties during the primaries. Its a shame but at least I'm sure we'll keep the general assembly.

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-04 @ 08:12:39

Hmm always interesting as always CR.
Well I hope you can change the Republican party for the better.
I'd say stay moderate but you know.
;)
Missouri will definitely be one to watch that is for sure.
I would love to see Obama win more counties than the dismal effort of Kerry 4 years ago.
Seeing a whole state Red like that (or Blue depending on which map) is just sad.
For us that is.
Good for you.
I like your positive spirit!
Nice attitude.
Well if it's any consolation 16 years ago (yikes!) I was a college & could not concentrate - praying for a George Bush win - would you believe it?!
How times change.
:)
Get some prettier pics of Columbia on Wikipedia entry too!

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-04 @ 08:23:11

Its always been my belief that you stay positive. Nothing I can do about half the things I worry about so I figure look on the bright side and move on. Whether Obama or McCain wins tonight my life will go on. Plenty of elections left in the future. The GOP will rebuild and come back strong. Of course if we win tonight we won't have to do so much, lol.

These states will tell us much about the state of the race as it unfolds. We might be able to call this race early on too if it breaks one way or the other. It actually comes down to four senerios in my book:

1. Obama holds all the Democratic state from 2004 and begins to add Virginia and Ohio and the like to his column. That tells us early on that the election is over and Obama has won.

2. McCain picks up Pennslyvania and/or New Hampshire (prehapse Maine) and holds all of the Republican states from 2004. This would indicate also that the election is over and that McCain has pulled off an upset, winning the election.

3. The states break roughly as they did in 2004 with minor chances prehapse in New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, etc. That means we are in for a very tight race and a very long night.

4. McCain wins states like Pennlyvania while Obama picks up Virginia. This would be the most wild senerio (with red state blue state completely tossed out the window) and would also probably lead to a very long election night with many suprising returns.

Last Edit: 2008-11-04 @ 08:26:24

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-04 @ 08:28:58

Ok if you put Maine's second in there then I think it's ok to put Nebraska's, is it second in there, the one with Omaha.
:)

I'm going with option 1.

I have no doubt you'll be back, there are high (perhaps too high) expectations on Obama, in difficult times.
Look at the mid terms in '94 - I remember the Time article well - "Storms Across America".

But I have faith in Obama, & believe he will do better than that, if of course given the chance which I hope America will give him.

10/10 for voting at 6 - urgh.
I've never done that.
But we have ours on Saturdays so much more relaxed.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-04 @ 08:35:47

Let me tell you as someone who is not a morning person and someone who loves to sleep in it takes a lot to get me out of bed at 5 in the morning. But this election has done it. And after seeing Palin yesterday I could hardly sleep anyway. Win or lose, I've done my duty as a citizen and I'm proud of that.

I personally am pulling for option 2. I'll take number 4 as a my second choice, lol.

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-04 @ 08:40:18

Yes but once you're up you're up.
Nothing a strong coffee won't fix.
I actually handed out how to vote cards here in the last election for my Liberal member (Conservative) - shock horror.
& it was also an early start!
I emailed him to get a bumper sticker & ended up handing out how to vote cards on election day in a fairly strong Labor (equivalent to Democrat I guess) polling booth.
& then I had to work!
All on a Saturday.
Was interesting though.
I'm only Democrat for you guys!
lol

Last Edit: 2008-11-04 @ 08:41:01

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-04 @ 11:49:37

Hey CR- Well, I was tough on you early on, and I'm sorry for that. I've learned some lessons in this processes and both parties have their strengths and flaws, so I wish you well. Now, I'm not willing to switch parties like liberalrocks did :), but I will certainly take a more independent approach to the respective candidates and I certainly WILL NOT be voting based on politcial party anymore but instead I will vote based on the individual. I just cant defend every aspect of a particular political party when I don't agree whole heartedly.

I'm glad that you got to see Palin. She has been here in Canton, Ohio twice and packs a good crowd. I don't particularly agree with her on many issues, but she's a decent person. I'm not sure what to make of your Missouri! I think its going to be close but could go either way. I'm sure you will have a long night.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-11-04 @ 12:33:36

CR, I want to thank you for a wonderful month long interchange on your blog. I may not have agreed with you and still do not in the outcome tonight, But I appreciated your reasoned arguments and wish you the best in the future!

Heavy voting in my central MN swing area and my precinct will set a record for student turnout. I backslided and voted for Al Frankenstein as his closing arguments swayed me and two other of my friends back to the DFL. But I still think Coleman wins!

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 10:47:54

Well everyone its been a fun ride and I've really really enjoyed debating with each and every one of you. Thank you for the stimulating discussions and I wish you all the best of luck in whatever you choose to do in life.

To the Democrats and Obama Supporters:

Well your guy won. You and the polls where right and I was wrong. I'm man enough to admit that. I thought that maybe, just maybe, John could pull off an upset. But it just didn't happen for us. We got throughly routed. A word of warning though. You've talked for years about how you could solve all of America's problems. Now you have to govern. You can't blame the Republicans for anything now. Bush is gone and our congressional minorities are too small. Back in 2004 when we had everything I knew many Republicans and conservatives that thought that the you guys where dead for decades to come. And now just four years later we've lost everything. So be careful, if the people don't like what you have to offer (as I think they might) then they'll throw you out as fast as they did to us. Just a word of warning, again congradulations on your victory.

To the Republicans, Conservatives, and GOP Allies:

Do not give into despair. Lets face some hard facts here guys. George W Bush sank us. Now Bush did some good during his term but he did a lot of stupid things that let the party drift away from conservative principles. In fact that had been happening since 1998. We became the big government conservatives. We let spending get out of control, got into earmarks, did not use the bully pulpit so the Democrats/media defined everything, and Bush did mismangage the war. With McCain we tried to be more of a moderate GOP (at least until the end of the campign). That doesn't work. Despite all that we might have had a shot until the morgage crisis took down the stock market. The party in the White House gets the blame for that one and we sure did. Not only that but McCain was too old. It really did look like JFK verses Nixon. He never stuck with a constant theme or message either and in the end we got Doled.

But the sun has risen and there is light at the end of the tunnel. It turns out congressionally, all those Republicans who ran very conservative campigns, that quote unquote appealed to the right, won their elections. It held true for the freshmen members in pickup seats and for those incumbents in tight races. In fact those that ran the more moderate, centrist campigns (like Shays) lost. So now the party is rid of a lot of what held us down. We needed a house cleaning and here it is. We must as a party get back to the conservative prinicples of 1980, 1984, and 1994 and repackage them so that they relate to the Americans of today.

The rebuilding and regrouping of the Republican Party starts today my friends! I'm going to be very busy working on it. Its time to rally around our rising starts and leaders like Palin, Jindal, Blackburn, Steele, Pence, Cantor, Ryan, DeMint, Romney, Huckabee, Sanford, Sessions, Inohufe, McConnell, and so on and so forth. Sarah is not done yet. She said she intends to stay active on the political stage. Let's face it, she was the one bright spot in the campign. Now she is nationally known and no longer shakelled by the McCain campign. So we look foward and we regroup. We had very little money to defend a lot of territory. But we must no longer play defense, we must go on offense. And we will as the Democrats have more to defend now. We have an opertunity here. We are free from Bush and our slate has been wiped clean. Time to regroup and move forward.

So do not worry. Liberals always over reach and I don't think the American people know what they've done yet. But they will. Greater days are ahead of this party and we will be back. So stay strong, countiue to fight, never give up, never surrend, never accept defeat but move on from it. Conservatism is far from dead and had it played a bigger role in this campign we'd have done much better. At least it showed up at the end but by then the economy had sunk us. McCain might have sunk us for 2012, who knows? So let's regroup and rebuild this great Republican Party for 2010 and 2012! America will need the choice.

Palin/Jindal 2012!!!!

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-06 @ 12:42:16

Keep going with Palin, and republicans won't see the Whitehouse for decades. I'm just trying to help.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-11-06 @ 16:52:31

Thanks again CR...I am shocked at the election resulfar beyond what i expected...AND no PUMA or Bradley effect...amazing...

Dems will not get 60 in senate which is good...but I am still amazed that Florida went to Obama as well as NC and IND. BUT not Missouri.

Thanks again CR and I look forward to debating with you in the future.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-11-06 @ 16:52:31

Thanks again CR...I am shocked at the election resulfar beyond what i expected...AND no PUMA or Bradley effect...amazing...

Dems will not get 60 in senate which is good...but I am still amazed that Florida went to Obama as well as NC and IND. BUT not Missouri.

Thanks again CR and I look forward to debating with you in the future.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-11-06 @ 16:52:31

Thanks again CR...I am shocked at the election resulfar beyond what i expected...AND no PUMA or Bradley effect...amazing...

Dems will not get 60 in senate which is good...but I am still amazed that Florida went to Obama as well as NC and IND. BUT not Missouri.

Thanks again CR and I look forward to debating with you in the future.

8. Sleeper race...Washington State is closer than expected and not immediately called...Obama wins by a couple of points.

As we can see, Gceres is a loser, and was wrong on every single prediction.

The biggest losers on this website?

Chica of Light, Gceres and Conservative Republican. All of whom let their bitterness and distortion cloud their judgment.

Chica was so bitter Hillary lost, she convinced herself Obama was going to be blown out of the water with a "Bradley Effect" which did not exist.

Gceres and Conservative Republican ignored any bit of information they didn't want to hear, and convinced themselves that they were the real Americans, and that there was a conspiracy by the pollsters and the media to paint the world more liberal than it actually is. Their attitude and philosophy, and their refusal to adapt and reason is the reason why the Republicans lost, and they will continue to lose until they wise up.

By:whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-11-06 @ 18:09:06

My personal thoughts are that the Republican party was simply out-organized in this election, toxic political environment aside. Much the same way that the Clintons were in many caucus states.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-06 @ 18:12:55

HI CR:

I have already done a preliminary comparative analysis of the results of Nov. 4th, election night, with the averages of the final polling and the results of the GE in 2004. These numbers are just preliminary numbers, until the official results are cast in stone, so to speak, but the numbers speak a clear language all on their own.

When the end tallies are official, I will re-do the report and enhance it.

Go read it. Fpr those who may not be hanging around here, come visit my blog, which I will keep up and running for a long time.

Oh, and BTW:

2004:

Bush - 62,040,610 votes

2008:

Obama (current total): 64,417,303, and rising.

This means that Obama has garnered more votes than any other candidate in american political history.

Also, in the analysis to Poll Convergence 12 (final), which you can read here, I predicted the following the following percentages for the two candidates:

Obama: 52.77%
McCain: 45.23%

Here the current percentage statistics:

Obama: 52.47%
McCain: 46.21%

Current deviation:

Obama: -0.30%
McCain: +0.97%

Now, with around 2.5 to 3 million votes yet to count, it is very possible that Obama will come up to 52.77-52.80 and McCain down to maybe 46.00%, but not down to 45.23% - so my call on Obama was very, very close and may end up being exact. But my call on McCain was off by about 1%.

--------------------------

Remember the 60 year electoral study I did in November 2007, starting with this end analysis? Well, once the tallies for 2008 are official, I will do a new 100, 60 and 48 year study. Stay posted.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 18:29:20

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 18:23:15
Biggest losers of 08

#8 Joe Lieberman - Mr. Lieberman let his hatred of muslims and his religious partisan ship destroy his dignity and cost him memebership in the democratic party.

#6 John McCain - Sold his soul and ran a negative campaign full of lies. His choice to run to the right in the worst year to do so might have cost him the election.

#5 PUMA and the bitter Hillary vote - So bitter that they lost the primary, they sold their souls to get revenge and it got them nowhere. These people showed their true colors and put their bitterness above their values.

#4 Sarah Palin - The worst possible pick for VP. She made such a fool of herself with her ignorance and extremism she will forever be seen as a laughing stock.

#3 The Bradley Effect - Absolutely no evidence of it existing

#2 Out of Touch Republicans - Their refusal to listen to anything that contradicts their world view, they convinced themselves they would win the election and that they were the "real americans". They try to mask their extremism as "mainstream values" and it once again cost them the election. They will continue this trend for quite some time until the party changes idenity.

#1 Baseless, fear based character attacks against liberals - These attacks finally lost out for the American public finally voted on the issues. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice shame on us and to sort of quote G W. Bush, Fool us the second time, we can't get fooled again.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:03:36

dnul - Thank you my friend for a spirited round of debates. I look foward to conversing with you on the 2010 midterms. I too was just stocked at the states of Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina above all the others. The west, Virginia, and Ohio I expected in an Obama win. But to the victors goes the spoils. At least we held Missouri, of that I'm proud.

whoblitzell - I absolutely agree with you. The GOP was out orgranized, out spent, and out classed. Obama was a very charismatic person and a good speaker compared to McCain would was old and not so good a speak. A similar comparison between Nixon and JFK. McCain also I don't think ever really was that well liked by the base. Most of them went with him just for Sarah. In the end it has less to do with conservativism than it does with an unpopular incumbent president and a stagnet economy. Those two really doomed us in the end.

Bonn - Thank you for all your write ups. In the end they where right. Good job amd congradulations. Be sure to keep posting numbers as I would enjoy reading a final statistical analysis of the data from the election. It was great debating with you this time around and I hope to see you again for the 2010 midterms. God bless you and your family.

Five - We lost and you where right about the polls. What good does it do to rub it in our faces. I maintained, and you can look it up if you so choose, that McCain could have lost and Obama won. I choose to try to be positive and hope for an upset. Given how bias the media was and is it made me distrustful of the polls. Now I know a little better. They will weigh more heavily on me in the future.

But from a historic stand point very liberal people usually don't get elected - Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. But this time was different with the economy and the incumbent president. I was not sure which factor would play out and guessed wrong. Plus John McCain was a horrid candidate and completely mismanaged his campign from his handling of Sarah to the basic get out the vote efforts. We were simply out matched this year.

So yes my thoughts on the race where not correct. Being positive did no good expect keep me in a good mood. Now I'm ready to move on and fight another day. But unlike others who can win or lose and still be friends you are just as hateful, bitter, smug, and intolerant as before to those that believe differently than you. And if you think you are in the majority forever now you better think again. If the people don't like the way you govern, they'll toss you guys out as readily as they did us. And this time you have no Republicans to blame, its all on you. You talked a big game, lets see you do some acting now.

To everyone it was again great to be with you for this spirited campign. I wish you all the best of luck and many many blessings. Onward to tomorrow. Sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.

Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 19:06:08

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:25:06

Conserivative, I am sticking it to you people because of your condescending, out-of-touch attitude that you Conservatives are the "real americans" and that you know it all. You maintain this attitude that "real" people couldn't possibly vote for some "liberal" and that you guys alone know the out come of the election, that there is some "liberal media" conspiracy in the polls, and thus you guys ignore all facts and information that contradicts your world view.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:36:46

Alright let's be fair here Five. I said that Obama could win but I choose to look a senerios in which McCain could have won. I thought that the race was going to be much closer. It was a suprise. I should have, in retrospect, given the polls some more weight. But national polls are always ahead of state polls and some of the ones I looked at lead me to believe it was going to be closer going in. Plus as I pointed out, liberals tend not to get elected in this country to the high office. But then again Obama ran more as a centrist and with the current state of things that was enough. We'll see what the next four years bring.

Being a good sport should mean you don't have to stick it to people. Honestly what purpose does that serve? I never claimed to be a "real American." I merely think that conservatives are right on the issues. But circumstances this year where not in our favor and McCain, like I said, was hardly the best candidate for conservatives. I also never claimed to know it all. I simply expressed my own personal opinion which I have every right to do. Nor do I recall being that condescending to anyone. I had disagreements and argued my point. There is nothing wrong with that.

But regardless of our disagreements, I still wish you well and I hope that you are very blessed in the future.

Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 19:40:40

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:53:23

*rolls eyes* you will never learn your lesson.

good for us though.

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-06 @ 21:16:52

First republicans need to figure out what 'conservative' is, because they haven't been conservative since 1980. And no, they're not liberal either. They're crony serving, and the majority of the people finally figured that out. It's just unfortunate that we had to have the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, before it sunk in for most of us.

Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 21:19:20

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-06 @ 21:36:17

Bye CR! Look forward to seeing you again in 4 years!
Have enjoyed reading your posts.
Congrats on holding Missouri - by the looks of it!
Although Boone county fell this year = nice to see at least some Democrat Blue (or red if u go with this site) on there for Missouri in a see of otherwise Red.
McCain made a very gracious speech too.
I sympaphise with you in that loosing sucks & know how you feel as had to go through it twice now in the last 8 years, so this was my turn to celebrate!
:)
Take care.
Stephen

Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 22:10:48

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 23:32:01

You know in some ways you're right satyday. The Republican Party has strayed from the conservative principles that made it great in the 1980's and between 1994 and 1998. We have some soul searching to do because we have many Republicans that want to dump conservatism and that is exactly what got us into this mess we're in today. When we don't act like or run as conservatives, we don't win elections. I think the party gets that. The base has a lot of work to do.

And we will. Now is the time to rally around Palin, Jindal, Sanford, Romney, Blackburn, Cantor, Ryan, Pence, DeMint, Sessions, Thune, Inohufe, Steele, Gingrich, and others. Time to get this party back into shape. There are forces in the party that will try to stop us but I think we've had enough loosing. We'll be back. I say instead of viewing this as a defeat we take it upon ourselves as Republicans and conservatives as an opertunity to rebuild and regroup.

Well all its been fun but I'm calling it quites on these boards for now. 2008 is over and thank God so is this election. Republicans its time to rebuild and regroup. Let's get this party back into shape! Lots of work to do.

God bless and keep you all. See you in 2010!

-Andrew

Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 23:32:23

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-06 @ 23:46:02

You've said sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.
I would say
sometimes it takes a Bush to get an Obama!
:)

Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 23:46:21

By:the rascal king (D-MA) 2008-11-07 @ 00:17:45

CR I enjoyed debateing you and others on this site,it was a good give and take on all sides.

if anyone whats to contact me outside of the user predictions forum my email address is captainkool2k@yahoo.com. I would also like to say that i highly recomend that people join the atlas forum on this site. it really is a great site its not that costly and I think its worth it.

I am well aware that he email I gave you guys is completely ridiculous. I wish I could change it.

thanks whether you are democrats or republicans I wish everyone on this site the
very best. I enjoyed talking polltics with everyone on here no matter how much we agreed disagreed on the issues.

if your ever driving some where and some Assh@#l cuts you off and flips you the bird, and he just happens to have a Massachusetts licence plate think of me!!!!

sincerely -James aka The Rascal King

Last Edit: 2008-11-07 @ 00:19:51

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-07 @ 01:03:17

Great debating and getting to know you this year, CR. You acknowledged that you were being optimistic in your prediction - I think you knew it was overoptimistic. Great to hear you may be coming around on your view of polling, also. And thank-you for the congrats. As for governing: True. True.

I have to absolutely disagree with you on Sarah Palin. Sure she energized some of the base - in a non base year. I find it amusing that the McCain campaign apparenly thought they win over some Hillary supporters when it actually just pissed them off and pushed them to Obama. She would have done better to pay more heed to her handlers, and take part in a briefing prior to the Couric interview. As for McCain's part, its becoming clear that he actually never thought much of her, and that his guys had to 'slap her down' on a regular basis. They put her up there as a 'hockey mom' to woo working class voters, meanwhile calling her a Wasilla hillbilly and other choice names behind her back. It typlifies the right's disingenous play for the working class, which it kicks to the curb upon ascending to power.

And Loosers, Five, you missed my #1, though he fits into your #s 1 & 2: Karl Rove and his devisive hate inspiring politics. As soon as McCain turned to him, McCain's campiagn went to shit. Good riddence, *&%#$ing asshole.

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-07 @ 02:36:39

Yes Karl Rove!
Yuck.

As a Hillary supporter, Sarah Palin did it for me when she tried to ride on Hillary's coat tails after all of Hillary's hard work to get where she has got, & Sarah just turned up practically from nowhere.
& that's not even going into the fact they are direct opposites on virtually all the issues.

When she mentioned the cracks in the glass ceiling it was an insult to Hillary's voters.

Anyway I do feel sorry for her now as I think she is getting a really hard time.
Some deserved, some not.

She really was a deer caught in the headlights.

I can't see her coming back, as she is now practically a laughing stock.

Yes she rallies the base but that's it.

She will have to redefine herself, & reeducate herself.
You can't run on a national level showing such ignorance.

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-07 @ 07:25:42

Yes, if Sarah Palin is the future for Republicans, then they have a very bleak future.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-07 @ 08:49:54

Just one more thing before I go. They said that Reagan was dangerous, too conservative, naive, and unelectible. Said that he would never come back after various defeats. And he showed them. So I don't think we've heard the last of good old Govenor Palin. Whether that means another White House run or heading to the congress, I don't know. But like the GOP I feel she'll be back. Plenty of young bucks waiting in the wings.

See you in 2010!

Last Edit: 2008-11-07 @ 08:51:15

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-07 @ 10:07:37

"They said that Reagan was dangerous, too conservative, naive, and unelectable."

They said Obama was dangerous, too liberal, naive and unelectable... So that's one thing they have in common (with symmetrical ideologies). A second is a big first-term win. We'll see whether Obama is as transformational as Reagan was.

And CR, it's been a real pleasure to debate with you, you and Gceres are examples of something which beforehand I was close-minded enough to consider impossible: intelligent conservatives.
And yes, you'll be back. I predict considerable gains for the GOP in 2010 (and if not, let me tell you it spells disaster for your party) in the House at least, because the Democrats' majority right now is just too big, see what I mean? The Obama wave will recede, they will be ups and downs.

Frankly I don't think Sarah Palin is your best candidate in the future. There are a lot of much more qualified, intelligent and mainstream politicians in the party. But you've been missing a leader for quite some time now. The Bushes were weak ones. The Democrats had Clinton and now Obama, who are terrific leaders as far as the party is concerned (and I'd argue the country, but that's where our disagreement begins). You need to find a new Reagan and that's really tough because Reagan was so special. I mean, just looking at some of his press conferences, I hate his politics but I can't help find him so funny and so likeable. Sarah Palin is not likeable. Her "actual responsibilities" joke was just obnoxious to every one left of John McCain (which, as the election has shown, means a lot of people).

So, if you don't want a second Obama term, find another horse to ride... You don't want to lose Indiana a SECOND TIME.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-07 @ 12:22:31

*rolls eyes*

Really, Republicans need to stop crushing over Reagan. The guy was president 20 years ago. Reagan, imo, was one of the worst and most evil presidents ever, and his type of economics is the reason we are in the financial mess we are in right now, but, seriously, give it a rest. GW Bush is the what people think of when they think of conservatives. You guys elected him twice, and you got exactly what you deserved. Lose your boners over Reagan, and stop ignoring the fact that BUSH is the president you all thought would be your new hero, and face reality.

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-07 @ 12:27:28

Reagan being conservative is such a fable. That's why republicans will keep losing until they actually figure out what conservative is. Because the lies don't sell anymore.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-08 @ 03:02:58

His economics led to our current recession. His foreign policy led, in a direct line, to the Taliban and the rise of Osama bin Laden.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-08 @ 10:16:40

"His economics led to our current recession. His foreign policy led, in a direct line, to the Taliban and the rise of Osama bin Laden."

Yes, one can make that argument, Indy. The truth (spoken by a true centrist, despite the attacks on my during the year) is probably somewhere in the middle. Bush 41 extended these policies and Clinton did little to turn many of them around.

CR, good to meet you. Hope you stay in touch.
I will be still posting a major analysis of this all in December on my blog, I am sure you have the http for my politics blog, so just stop on by.

Parting words about Palin: if I were you, and I mean this with respect and friendship: if I were you, I would take one step back, breathe, and take a REAL HARD look at this person before even thinking of nominating her again. I am not speaking of her age or personality, but rather, her actions and behaviour patterns. In it's rush to find fresh new blood to get excited about, I think the McCain team (and now, by it's own admission, btw) did not vet Palin well, nor did the GOP body as a whole once she was nominated. She has bitten every hand that ever fed her in political life, she exercises McCarthy-like techniques, she is vengeful, she is all too quick to wratch, and she is not yet qualified. Notice that I write "not yet", for she could indeed obtain the qualifications, but her behaviour will likely not change.

I stand by my argument that McCain lost at least 1-2 points because of Palin. She may have energized what the GOP would like to think of as the base, but unfortunately, she also stoked hatred, vileness, racism and bigotry into the mix in her campaign stops and I am convinced that in doing this, she scared the crap out of independent voters who were lukewarm on Obama but saw no other choice after having seen Palin in action.
I cannot imagine that any intelligent GOPer, once he or she has really examined Palin in detail, would want to take this risk again, and I personally think that a party as grand as the GOP used to be deserves better. For this reason, I suspect that the GOP will drop her like a hot potato. And when it does, I will write you about it immediately. Think about it.

And I would bet that her days in office in Alaska are also numbered.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-08 @ 10:19:35

"Well your guy won. You and the polls where right and I was wrong."

I think it is not a matter of right or wrong, but rather, the willingness to really examine empiric data and watch trends, without bedeviling or marginalizing pollsters we don't agree with.

My averages were very close to the mark in most all cases.

And my national call of 52.77 for Obama is about to happen, he is now at 52.54, tendency rising.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 12:03:48

I think it is not a matter of right or wrong, but rather, the willingness to really examine empiric data and watch trends, without bedeviling or marginalizing pollsters we don't agree with.

By:jlorenzen (D-OH) 2008-11-08 @ 12:32:24

Bonn- I couldn't agree more with your analysis of Palin. I can't imageine that, after the results of this election are picked apart, the GOP will consider her for anything more thatn the Sec. of Interior. She is far too polarizing on both sides of the aisle.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-08 @ 12:39:14

A note on PUMA: by pumping up the notion of Democratic dis-unity, did PUMA in the end act as a foil, leading to McCain's disastrous choice of Palin as running mate? I'd say so.

By:jlorenzen (D-OH) 2008-11-08 @ 14:58:11

Where has Joan4hillary been? Maybe she could explain why PUMA was a dismal failure.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-08 @ 16:04:21

How about "we don't want him here in Nevada" Faye?

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 16:11:15

Oh, yes, Faye, now she was something else.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-08 @ 17:23:51

Hi CR- Well, I think you can rest assured that your party is down, but never out. Now from watching this election I've noticed an increase in polarization between the parties. What I see as very disturbing is the systematic purging of moderates from the GOP (Collins and Snowe aside). It just seems like the hard line social cons hold on yet the moderates aren't welcome anymore (of course the same could be said for the Dems today) but it seems more pronounced in the GOP with the loss of people like Sununu, Smith, Dole, Shays, Chaffee, Deborah Pryce, Heather Wilson, Gilchrest, Nancy Johnson, etc. etc. Little by little it seems like the GOP is becoming more hardened to the right and there isn't room for the moderates because unless you are in total agreement on social issues you eventually become isolated and the far right throws you under. IMO. I've noticed a lot of blame going around directed by the right at moderates in the GOP. That's frightening. I certainly hope the GOP doesn't move further to the right, but I fear it will.

I still do not know what to make of Palin. I admit that I think she is a decent human being but I also admit that she is the reason I did NOT vote for McCain. She is just too far out of the mainstream. There were many qualified women that were a bit more moderate like Kay Bailey Hutchison that McCain could have chosen. Palin was not a complete mistake. She served 50% of her purpose. She solidified the GOP base and brought evangelicals out to vote in masses like they did in 2004. She also grabbed the media spotlight from Obama, which McCain desperately needed in that the media was so incredibly biased towards Obama. On the other hand she basically handed all of Hillary's voters over to Obama with her extreme views. Many women that voted for Hillary in the Dem primaries and initially liked the idea of a woman VP in Palin, turned against her when they learned how extremely conservative she actually was. She has NOTHING in common with Hillary Clinton! I have no idea what McCain was thinking?

On a personal note, I dont usually volunteer my time, in that I admit I'm very selfish. But I didn't volunteer for Hillary in February to have someone with completely opposite views from myself and who does not share my values attempt to "fill Hillary's shoes." Of course I also didn't volunteer for Hillary so that Obama could totally dimiss all of our votes, by not placing her on the ticket, but that is how things worked out. Again, I'm sure that Palin is a perfectly nice and honorable person, but she just does not share my values. I would watch putting her on the ticket in 2012 because I don't think she appeals to anyone but the religious right.

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-08 @ 17:49:58

I agree with much of that. I wanted an anti-obama voice and toward the end of this campaign I realize the best anti-obama voice is not Sarah Palin.

She is NO Hillary- there is only one.

I dont think we will be seeing Sarah in 2012 unless she somehow overcomes the image problems that define her during this campaign. Her views are just too far out of the mainstream for moderates and independents to vote for her. Unless there are major problems in the Obama administration.She would also have to build more experience and be a voice on the national scene. I do believe this is a slightly right from center nation though so who knows.... A week is a lifetime in politics.

If she moderated some of her postions somewhat I would be more able to support her nomination in 2012.

Last Edit: 2008-11-08 @ 17:54:07

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-08 @ 17:54:05

Obama was elected for 2 reasons: Bush and Palin. Don't ever threaten us with the likes of those morons again, and maybe the republicans can make a come-back.

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-08 @ 17:56:50

No one can predict the future of Sarah Palin or her success. Again a week is a lifetime in politics. That said she would have some major hurdles to overcome if she expects to be nominated and be a successful challenge to President Obama. It would also depend upon President Obama's performance and if he survives the first term in more ways then one....

Hows that secret service detail??

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 18:47:53

Hey all. I just wanted to check in one last time before I call it quites for a while. I'll probably check in for a little while till all the results of the race are confirmed and we move on. That or until I get too busy to stop in. I have a lot of research piling up and yet another round of exams coming. And what with the holidays, well lets say my free time is rather limited.

First off I want to address a few things you've said doniki. You do realize being right wing or conservative does not just involve the social issues? I know that's an image that has been painted of us but its far from our only thing. Taxes, limited government, spending, national security, energy policies, and government reform are key plancks that go along with abortion, guns, and what have you. And believe me, we're not trying to alienate anyone. But when we run as moderates, as Democrats-lite, we lose. Offering a weak alternative is not much of an alternative at all. IMHO.

That should be very appearent now. McCain, for most of the campign, ran a maverick bipartisan blab blab blab deal. And look at the races you mentioned - Smith, Shays, etc. Running as moderates and leaving our base and principles doesn't work. What we have to do is to return to the values that conservatives have - limited government, energy independence, free market economics, low taxes, limited spending, strong military, second amendment rights, family values, and so on and so forth. We must take the timeless ideas from 1980, 1984, and 1994 and repackage them to appeal to the public of today. After all Democrats haven't bugged much on issues any more than we have since the 1970's. We never hear they have to change.

What doomed the GOP this year is what you said earlier. The morgage/bailout crisis that wrecked a market already weakened by a slow down. That coupled with an already unpopular inumbent president spelled trouble for our party. Plus we ran a horrid campign with McCain. Palin was in some respects completely mishandled by the campign as well. Now they are attacking her because she's a conservative. She's the moderates' scapegoat. And I don't find her views that far out of the mainstream because I don't think the GOP base is that far removed from the mainstream (of course eveyone has their own personal quarks). If they where that removed then our ideas would never have won us the elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994. Until we start acting like conservatives Republicans again (and our party is still open but we do have core values just like the Democrats, we offer a choice) we won't be winning elections.

Sarah has a bright future ahead of herself no matter what she chooses to do. Palin appeals to the GOP base and its more than just the religious right. Social conservatives are one thing but its not fair to dismiss the Libertarian, fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and all around base conservatives out of hand. Sarah offers something for all of us. They said Reagan had an image problem too. That he was too conservative, too polarizing, and out touch after his run in 1976. Yet he came back and won big in 1980 and 1984. She is a very tough conservative woman and her demonization by the press would be laughible if it were not so tragic.

Will she be nominated in 2012? Does she want the job? Who knows. I'd say this, she can still be a powerful voice and leader for the Republican Party even outside presidential politics. Certainly she could be the nominee in 2012 all things depending. If not, I'd like to see her be the Govenor of Alaska for a while longer and then maybe head off into the Senate. Let Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele head the RNC and give control of the House leadership to Ryan, Pence, and Cantor. In that case we groom Govenor Bobby Jindal for the presidential race in 2012. I think Marsha Blackburn would make an excellent VP running mate.

Whatever the future brings, we've got nowhere to go but up. The Republicans have been down much worse than this back in the 1960's and 1970's. Back when we tried to be more moderate. No, we must get back to our roots and the rebuilding starts today. I say just let the Democrats govenor for a while. I have a strong feeling they are going to overreach and the people will not be pleased. And we as a party need to refresh and have a much better ground game/get out the vote effort next time around. I know one thing, after 2006 and 2008 I think most of the party gets it. We're tired of losing. Now that we are free of Bush (and in some ways McCain) we have a clean slate. Its no one's turn next. Time for a little change inside the GOP, lol. But I caution Democrats that think they will be in control for a long time. We thought the same thing in 2004. When the people get tired of it, they are tired of it. And then we move on and look towards tomorrow.

@CR- As a person, I still like Palin. I give any woman credit for stepping into a man's world of politics, regardless of her political persuasion. I simply don't agree with her on many issues and don't feel that she represents my values. If she represents your values that's fine. I'm not telling you how to think. I think the double standard she faced from the media and the Obama campaign was truly unwarranted. It was the same case with Hillary. And now, I think for some in the GOP to blame her for their loss is equally as dirty. She served the bulk of her purpose, but she could have been handled differently by the campaign.

I still think her attraction is not from fiscal conservatives, but social conservatives. Social conservatives were very mistrusting of McCain, which is why he chose her. The bulk of her support came from the religious right. Those people that packed stadiums to see her were mostly evangelicals who were inspired by her conservative social views. They did not care about the tax rebates she gave to Alaskans. They cared that her daughter carry out her pregnancy.

Also, I have to disagree with you. You NEED your moderates. The GOP is taking a hit in moderate/liberal states like PA, NY, NJ, NH, NM, etc... You can't sell these conservative Republicans to liberal states or you will end up a party mitigated to the South and Breadbasket. The Dems have had to adjust on social issues- abortion, guns, etc... in states like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri to win Governships and Senate seats. Likewise they have adjusted to win house seats in LA, AL, FL, NC, VA, etc... There are ways to adjust your message for the political climate of the region without sacrificing core values. The GOP is going to have to give some room if it wants to be competitive in deep blue states.

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-08 @ 19:53:27

Agreed on the above. Myself for instance I am in a liberal state but voted for Mc Cain as a moderate. If the republicans would have run social conservative Huckabee I would have likely just stayed home. If I were to move to battleground state sometime in the next 4 years, which is ofcourse possible my vote would have an impact and be more up for grabs. Sarah would have to moderate her views a bit if she is the nominee in 2012 and expects to win. Mc Cain lost independents badly to Obama and Sarah would do the same unless she repairs her standing with the public and again moderates her image. Although I do have to agree with you on just how badly she was treated in the media. It was the same bias they had against Hillary because both were a threat to their messiah Obama. CR you cant win elections just with the base of the party and with the Obama campaign has registered many more democrats this election season. I agree with Doniki its a fine line to walk if the GOP wants to start winning in the near future.

Well CR congrats at least we were able to hold Missouri. Im disappointed too. However I do have to admit depending on how Obama performs and who the GOP nominates in 2012. My vote is completely up for grabs. I may live in California now but who knows where I will be in 4 years.

Last Edit: 2008-11-08 @ 19:59:59

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 19:53:55

Go Palin 2012! I would love to have that punching bag back again.

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-08 @ 20:04:06

Careful what you wish for Five. Palin has four years to repair her image moderate some postions and build a national voice. Obama also has four years of a presidency where much can go right but also much could go wrong. 4 years is an eternity in politics. I will echo what CR had said many wrote Reagan off as too extreme after he lost in 1976. In the four years after the loss he rebuilt his name in the party as many had saw him as a reason Ford lost. He then came back and beat Carter in 1980 when things for Carter the agent of change were really bad.

My point is much can happen and the opinion people have of Palin today could change for many reasons. They certaintly couldnt get much worse considering the blame game thats going on.

Last Edit: 2008-11-08 @ 20:05:34

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 20:13:04

I don't think the Rethugnicans are coming back anytime soon, and when they do, they will look different.

By:sknowman14 (I-WV) 2008-11-08 @ 22:42:23

CR, I appreciate your candor. However your response confirmed what I was afraid would happen with conservatives, that their rejection in 06' and 08' would only harden them and move them further right. I think their hard right movement will continue to hurt them. It has with me, my wife and many of our friends and family. Time will tell. Democrats have the wind at their back right now it appears there are more states trending blue than the other way. Obama and the Democrats have extremely high expectations. Hopefully they can live up to them and not squander their opportunity.

By:whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-11-08 @ 22:46:15

Whether they like it or not, the Republicans will have to moderate on social issues. With a shrinking Caucasian population and the younger demographics swinging for the Democrats, Republicans need to expand their base.

This has been the story of all conservative parties. The times change and progress, and no politician can control cultural changes. Not even the 'messiah' :P

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 23:22:21

If they continue to move to the right, they will continue to lose. So don't mind CR.

Listen, I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future we see a split amongst the Republican Party. The Republican Party used to be the party of business people, and of intelligent smart people until they got taken over by the loons on the religious right, which pretty much dropped the parties IQ 40 points. If they are going to be taken seriously again they are going to have to get rid of those GW Bush and Palin types, and return to a party that is moderate on social issues and returns to their roots again fiscally.

A Republican Party of this candor is a party I can deal with on a civil and intelligent level with out mockery and with respect, though I may not always agree. Those religious bigoted religious whackos need to either get out of politics or find themselves a new party and we will all be better off.

Last Edit: 2008-11-08 @ 23:22:58

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-08 @ 23:53:22

Reagan WAS a moderate compared the current GOP right wing. Shays and the like are going down BECAUSE they're tied to the discredited right wing Republican label. They had only been able to be elected and reelected in the first place because the were moderates. I agree with doni's comments on this.

Palin will not be a credible national candidate in 2012. If she is somehow nominated, it will be a symptom of a marginalized and unyeilding right wing of the party, and she would loose in a massive landslide. I see a Gingrich and a Huckabee in the GOP's future.

Last Edit: 2008-11-08 @ 23:57:18

By:colin (R-ON) 2008-11-09 @ 10:12:41

Five...I just wish that for once you would be able to provide some intelligent, well thought out, reasonable analysis. Alas, I don't know if you are capable of providing "analysis" without disparaging remarks and insults. It is a shame. CR, I wish you all the best in the future. To those that are winning gracefully and humbly, I wish you all the best as well in the future. Now is your time in the spotlight. I sincerely hope I have been wrong and that you do great things with it.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-09 @ 10:30:52

Okay look I think what I was trying to say got lost along the way somehow. As someone who is a base conservative and a member of the party I can tell you that we are not just about soical issues. That is not the life blood of this party. Its an important part but not the end all and be all. Foriegn policy and fiscal issues are extremely important to us as is some of our more libertarian leaning individuals. And every time my party moderates we end up where we are now. That was the way the party was in the 1960's and 1970's. A bunch of losers. I want a Republican Party, not a Democrat-lite Party.

What Reagan did was build a coalition of many different types of conservatives and some moderates. Reagan didn't move to pick up Reagan Democrats or Independents, he moved them to the right. He sold our ideas and to do that we need someone who is a good communicator (unlike Bush and McCain). That is what we must do for a new generation and it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is, your gender, or age, conservativism has something to appeal to everyone. But the fact of the matter is, the GOP is not going to give up being pro-life or pro-gun any more than Democrats are being pro-abortion or pro-health insurance.

Politics are cyclical. Sometimes they swing left and sometimes they swing right. I'll agree with Five on one point, fiscally my party has stumbled. One might also make that case for foriegn policy but less so in my opinion. So I can understand why others label us with just social issues. We need to restrengthen the other to legs of our party. But eventually the people will swing back our way. How long depends on what Obama does and how we rebuild our party. Again I say we need a good speaker to sell our ideas and we need a strong united voice like the one Reagan gave us.

In this election, I honestly don't believe most people found Obama that liberal. He had a very well disiplined and well oil campign. He stuck to constant messages and themes. Some of them conservative like tax cuts for the middle class and such. With the aid of the media he defined himself. He has a terrific get out the vote effort and registered more voters. And he was a much much better speaker than McCain. The GOP campign was poorly run and constantly seems to have been in disarry. McCain tried I think in someways to simply be the alternative and it just didn't work because he never sold his ideas.

I find it very amusing to see Democrats acting like a lot of Republicans and conservatives I knew back in 2004. We had beaten you soundly and you guys where going to be down for a long long time I was told. We even talked about a civil war in the party between your moderates and liberals. Now to see the same thing happening here is just really funny. Not that you could not be in power for some time, dependings on how you govern and how the GOP rebuilds, but I'd be careful. The people don't need much to change their minds. Republicans, though, in the future need to get out and sell our ideas with a good ground game much as Obama and the DNC did. Those same approaches can be applied for usage too. For now, at least the worst is over with.

So I say again I don't know what the future holds for Sarah Palin. She could be like Reagan and come back to lead the GOP in four years. She could continue on as govenor of Alaska. Or she could run for Congress, which I would like to see her do very much. We still have a lot of good people to run in 2012 besides Palin, we have Jindal, Sanford, Romney, Pence, and who knows who else will emerge over the next four years. We'll just have to wait and see. But it is time to get back to our conservative roots and generate new ideas, which I believe will appeal to moderates if presented correctly, and rebuild. Sooner or later the people will swing back our way and we'll be back.

"Five...I just wish that for once you would be able to provide some intelligent, well thought out, reasonable analysis. Alas, I don't know if you are capable of providing "analysis" without disparaging remarks and insults. It is a shame. CR, I wish you all the best in the future. To those that are winning gracefully and humbly, I wish you all the best as well in the future. Now is your time in the spotlight. I sincerely hope I have been wrong and that you do great things with it." -Colin

Colin, if you want the disparaging remarks out of comments, then lose the disparaging policies out of your party. If you think as a gay person, and as a person who doesn't want to accept the religion you people try to legislate when this country is founded on freedom of religion, that I am going to give you people respect when the Republican party doesn't give me any respect as a human being you have another thing coming.

You just don't get it. Its not that liberals like me dislike Republicans for the sake if it, its that you people try to impose your ignorance upon us, and until that stops, we will not stop attacking you. You guys are waging war upon us and you think we are just going to smile and let you take away our rights? You have another thing coming.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-09 @ 16:35:16

I see three major ways to win a majority (and an election):
1) benefit from the incumbents' low popularity;
2) move to the center while your opponents stays on their positions;
3) inspire beyond your own ranks.

Looking back to all presidential election cycles since 1976, here is how I see it:
1976: 1 Carter was the reaction to Watergate
1980: 1 Reagan benefited from the hostage crisis
1984: 3 High number of moderates and independents inspired by Reagan
1988: 2 Dukakis too far out left -Bush helped by Reagan years
1992: 1 Bush unpopular > Clinton wins
1996: 2 New Democrats
2000: 2 Bush moves to the center
2004: 3 Wartime presidency > stronger incumbent
2008: 1+2+3 Bush unpopular, Obama moved to center, and inspired many people (not GOPers but independents and non-voters)

2012: How can the GOP win?

1) Obama fails as President: then it's an easy pick, but don't count on it. This guy was underestimated all long and by too many people. Plus, fearmongering is no use with an incumbent -people know he's not dangerous. You know what you have, not what you get.
2) The GOP moves to the center. Highly improbable. 2010 will be either a new 1994 or a new Democratic majority election, with a conservative Republican minority. Either way, conservatives dominate the party, especially with Rockefellers falling like dominoes.
3) The GOP finds an inspirational leader. Four years is a short period of time but the Dems found one. None of the current players is satisfactory -none can beat a President Obama on inspiration alone. Especially not Palin, who inspires few people outside the radical right (which I admit is still a strong component).

Furthermore, the GOP is facing an ideological crisis embodied by the reaction to the financial chaos. Congressional Republicans were irresponsible while the Administration was slipping into the lower twenties for doing, for once, the right thing. The question, CR is right, is not about the social issues. The GOP can still rally a majority on moderate pro-life, pro-gun stances. Not a big one, though. But the real problem is the economy. On health care, on the mortgage crisis, and with the unemployment rates rising, government can't back off any more or deride itself in Reagan-like self-hatred. The Bush Administration finally learned that lesson, but the conservatives did not.

Even if Obama does not handle the crisis well enough so that the economic situation is favorable again by 2012, if the GOP has no counter-proposal but to let things be and see what happens, he'll win like Roosevelt won in 1936 -that's a promise.

The lesson for the GOP is clear: no Palin and her likes, no laissez faire and its likes.

In fact, the current GOP crisis is very much like the French Socialist Party's. Its leaders are in a fight, its more moderate members are joining President Sarkozy (think Chafee, Powell), its ideology is still tainted with too much old radicalism to win a majority. No leader, too radical, not pragmatic.
The moral and fiscal conservative majorities can still win, but they must adjust. And that's not just a liberal speaking. If you had told me just two years ago a black man would win the presidential election with 365 electoral votes including those from North Carolina and Indiana, I would have called you nuts. Like the French Socialists, you must adjust. Like the French Socialists, you don't like it. And you'll learn the lesson the hard way the way the Democrats learnt in the 80's and the 2000's. Clinton and now Obama each lead one generation of moderates and pragmatic liberals. The Democratic plank is stripped of radicalism and ideology, but for its progressive undercurrent (and not prime concern) which is its trademark on social issues and macroeconomic policies.

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-09 @ 16:51:11

Is there such a thing as a 'fiscal conservative'? I've never seen one.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-09 @ 17:00:14

More analysis on the GOP crisis:

Ecological analysis:
The GOP now holds only a few places:
-the Deep South; the western South, but only at the presidential level, for TN, KY, LA and AR are more Democratic locally;
-Texas -always comes in handy, a true, proud stronghold;
-The Western plains and Rocky Mountains.

Problems in those areas:
-Out West: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona are growing and trending Dem. Badly (OK, AZ is debatable but I'd argue McCain would have lost it had he not been its two-decade senator). Without those states, no comeback.
-Upper South: intellectuals and blacks make life difficult for the GOP in NC and VA. To win those back, you need to get those eggheads to like you at least marginally. So, putting a lid on some social conservative culture war shouts might come in handy.
-Florida: the Cubans and the senior citizens won't do the trick anymore. This is a must-win for the GOP.

Other major problems:
-Upper Midwest and Rust Belt: Kerry won by razor-thin margins in MN, MI, PA, NJ, WI. Obama won by double digits. Kerry lost IA, OH. Obama won them handily. Kerry lost IN by a terrific margin. Obama won it in an upset.
The GOP won't be competitive again there if it doesn't re-think its economic agenda to suit the more populist crisis-stricken states of this area. Populism is key there. And it will last a good long while. More middle class concerns, more intervention, less laisser faire would do some good in these places. The only part the GOP has right at the moment is taxes, but they don't wield it well enough.
-New England. Now CR and others will tell me it's a desperate, nearly European place. But think about it: not a single congressperson from that place -all were shot down politically in two years. Now you may rejoice about the death of Rockefeller Republicanism. But let me say this: without New Hampshire, Al Gore would be the lame duck right now. McCain lost his best Northeastern state by double digits. Think about it: by letting those 22 House seats and 34 EV's go forever, you're giving the Dems a base.
-Ditto, to a lesser extent, the Pacific Coast: Smith is gone, Schwarzenegger and Lingle will soon be. You have no GOP Senator from this place. Swing states like WA and OR voted for Obama by high single digit margin. The cities on the sea have overpowered the inner conservative areas. The GOP is all but dead on that Coast, only 20 years after Reagan left office. Think about that as well.

Geographically, the lost ground is terrible. No Republican has won more than 300 EV's in 20 years, after three landslides.
That's a long-time trend.

I'm not saying the GOP can't fix it. Reagan was elected 6 years after Watergate. But it spells trouble for the GOP.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-09 @ 17:01:30

@CR- the point I'm trying to make is that I think your party is going to need to make some concessions in parts of the country if it wants to remain competitive especially if young people become more engaged. Taking hard-line stances on Issues like abortion, gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, the war, etc... are not selling in the Northeast or West Coast. The GOP has lost so many seats in blue states like PA, NY, CT, NH, and now into swing states like VA, OH, MI, FL, NM, AZ, CO, etc...

It just appears that the more moderate Republicans are not getting the support they should from the party itself. Here in OH-16, our very popular GOP congressman of 30 years, Ralph Regula almost lost his primary in 2006 to a staunch social conservative because Regula broke with Bush on Stem cell research. He won reelection in 2006, but retired and his seat is now in Democratic hands. Why are these moderates being purged from the party while at the same time people like Michelle Bachmann and Jean Schmidt hold their seats. The GOP is in the minority and to win back some of these moderate seats they are going to have to moderate on some issues or they won't win. The Dems know that to win in the South they can't put up a candidate that is anti-gun, or pro-choice, so why can't the GOP put up a candidate that is pro-gay and pro-choice in New York or Connecticut?

Here is the point I'm trying to make. The GOP is increasingly trending to the right, especially after this election where it appears the right wing is doing a moderate witch hunt. The basic premise of the GOP is a good one: limited government, low taxes and a strong military. But increasingly that is being superseeded by social cons who are fixated on wedge issues like gays, guns and abortion. Why can't the GOP make some concessions on social issues and support their moderates, much like the Dems do with Southerners. Perhaps you wouldn't have lost Shays, Johnson, Leach, Pryce, Wilson, Kelly, Sununu, Smith, DeWine, (and the list goes on) if the party wasn't so geared towards social conservatism. Reagan had NO problem working with these people. Don't forget he appointed O'Connor to the Court!

Now what happens in 2010 when Spectar, Voinovich, McCain, etc... come up for reelection in the Senate. Obviously the Dems wont hit 60 this year, but if Obama is evently remotely successful in not letting the economy fall further, 60 or 62 seats in the Senate could be attainable for the Dems.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-09 @ 17:14:21

Bravo, French. Excellent analysis. I like to examine a broader perspective. Kennedy and Reagan were each transformational presidencies. Klien in the new issue of times calls these elections 'the ratification of an essential change in the nature of the country.' While Kennedy's presidency was cut short, Johnson carried on most of his ideas. In each case, the opposing party in the next election ran candidates who did not recognize or adjust to this change, Goldwater and Mondale, and each candidate lost in historical landslides. Obama, also is a transformational leader, winning an election that can be accurately described as a referendum on the Reagan era. I don't see how today's GOP is capable of recognizing and adapting to this change in four years. Jindal is the most promising, IMHO. Of course we shall see!

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-09 @ 17:24:42

"Obviously the Dems wont hit 60 this year"

Not terribly obvious. There are tens of thousands of absentee ballots to be counted in Alaska, where Stevens holds a 3500 vote lead. Coleman is up by a mere 200 going into the recount, with perhaps 20,000 undervotes. And Chambliss has yet to win a runoff. My guess is Coleman and Chambliss have the edge, but its not obvious to me that "OT" will not result in 60 seats for the Democratc Senate caucus.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-09 @ 17:35:26

Adjustment is key...
Sociological analysis makes that clear. The Obama coalition is overpowering:
-nearly all the African Americans;
-2 to 1 Hispanics;
-majorities among urban whites and educated whites, as well as Asians;
-and a good chunk of blue collars.

The problem is the following: the GOP is losing both the lower-middle class and everything under it because of economic conservatism (anti-healthcare reform, anti social security, pro-laissez faire) AND the intellectual elites because of its social conservatism.
I don't have any example for the first category but I have one for the second: my girlfriend's family are wealthy whites who are French but economically conservative as well as generally right-of-center in France (which is left-of-center in the United States). They are liberal Democrats merely because they see Republicans as, if not fascists, at least past-centered bigots. For them, abortion, the death penalty, neoconservative foreign policy did the trick more than anything like the tax cuts.

Losing the poor on the economy, losing the rich on the social issues: you only have the conservative white middle and upper-middle class to rely on, those who are rich enough not to care about social security and not secularized enough (which has a strong correlation with education and urbanization, two growing trends) to be progressive on social issues. With minorities growing and social progressivism having proven to be largely irresistible in the long term, I think the GOP is doomed to adjust.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-09 @ 18:00:47

@wingindy- I don't see 60 but kudos to you for your optimism. If blacks do not turnout in Georiga, Chambliss will win. I do not think they will turnout unless Obama gets down there very quickly and stumps with Martin. The bulk of Alaskas absentees were cast before the conviction, so I think that Stevens has a very good chance of holding on.

My question regarding Minnesota is if the provisionals and absentees have been counted yet? This should favor Franken, which appears to be why Coleman is a bit nervous and is fighting to stop the recount and the ballots that are arriving in late from Hennepin County. Are you sure there were 20,000 undervotes because I read that were actually 6,000 votes yet to be counted, so I'm not sure if those 6,000 were undervotes or if they were the absentees and provisionals. I do not know when the Minn. Sos will update their count. Its a fascinating race. It is Gregoire vs. Rossi deja vu.

By:CR (--MO) 2008-11-09 @ 18:35:09

I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves here. First off I agree with French on a number of things about why certain candidates win. But I do not concede that conservatism in America must become moderatism and that Democrats have won on the issues. For the most part, between 1932 and now the Democrats have changed but very little. Their ideas have been packaged differently for a new era but they are basically still the party of big government. From the mid 1950's to the late 1970's the GOP try to be just the alternative to the Democratic party. We tried to be the center, slightly right party. It didn't work. We lost time and again. We where a pathetic minority in the congress from 1960 all the way to 1994. Presidential it was a hit or miss depending on if the Democrats where messing up.

But Reagan and Gingrich showed us a different way. Those values that you talked about doniki - limited government, low taxes, strong defense are the core of the GOP. So is being pro-life and pro-gun. But we've strayed from those issues in recent years, really since about 1998. I can see why you guys judge us as solely being social conservatives because the other legs of our party have been weakened. That what I and the party mean when we say its time to get back to basics. We must take our timeless ideas that gave us wins in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 and sell them to the people of today with modern packaging.

Look politics is cyclical. We had a bad year due mostly to the economy and the incumbent president's popularity. But more than that, Obama had the better campign. It was diciplined, he stuck to a constant theme, and he was articulate. We have not had good speakers in either Dole, Bush, or McCain. We ran a chaotic campign that simply put McCain as the alternative. And in a bad year for Republicans when it comes to a choice between a moderate and a Democrat the Democrat will always win. That's why the moderates lost their seats the conservatives kept theirs.

If these moderates just disagreed with us on social issues that would be fine. But a number of them won't go with us on a whole host of issues from earmarks to spending to educational reform to limited government policies. They are big government Republicans that agree far too often with the left. Its one thing to be more to the center and another to be in the center. Those are people we are seeking to purge. One thing I like about Democrats is that they run local candidates that are appealing to that region of the country they are campigning in, but once they get to DC they usually vote in lock step. God I'd kill for a little bit of that party discipline on our side.

But for someone like Rudy Giuliani, whom I supported throughout most of the primaries before going with Mitt, I know a ton of Republicans that would rejoice if he ran for the Senate in New York. Presidential he failed because he was one leg short, the social leg, of the party platform. You need all three to win. However, many GOPers would welcome him into the senate because he supports the limited government and so on of the party. People like Smith and Spector have trouble with that and are too close to the other side. So we do need regional people but they must be on board with a majority of the party platform, just the like the Democratic candidates.

Now I don't know what 2010 will hold. I'd love to see Palin, Guiliani, Huckabee, Hulshof, Hoeven, and a number of others run for the Senate. In 2006 and 2008, along with deep unpopularity for the GOP, we also had far more seats up than Democrats. Now in 2010 we have less territory to defend and I think we could make some gains. We also don't know how well Obama is going to do. Wingindy says he'll be transformative like JFK or Reagan. I say he'll be disasterous like Carter. We'll have to see. But I think we ought to start grooming Jindal right now for the nomination in 2012. We need a good, all around conservative that can appeal to the whole base. We also need this individual to be relativily young and a good speaker from outside Washington who can sell conservatism to the people and while inspiring the base. That's what Reagan did. That's what we did in 1994.

In short we in the Republican party have a lot to do between now and then but we've tried it the moderate way several times now. We've also let key parts of our agenda and party platform fall into ruin, such as our fiscal priorities. That must change. That will change. As congressman Ryan from Wisconsin said, we are tired of losing. It is time to return to our values and be the conservative party again, not just the less liberal alternative and social conservative choice as compared to the Democrats. So yes we've got our work cut out for us. But we can do it and we will be back. The people will eventually tire of the Democrats sooner or later.

Jindal/Blackburn 2012!

Last Edit: 2008-11-09 @ 18:46:23

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-09 @ 19:04:59

Interesting comments, CR, I read them with fascination. Well written, and full of things to consider.

I wish your party a good healing, for it needs it.

But coming from the underdog position, as the republicans are now in, I think the GOP has a viable chance in 2016 or 2020.

I do, however, stick 100% by my argument that the pick of Palin was a HUGE mistake by Mccain - even his aides are practically quoting me without knowing it and calling the pick a "Hail-Mary pass".

Not because she is a woman.
Not because she is a republican.

But because her behavioural patterns are EXTREMELY disturbing. And in the age of documentation until the cows moo, there is no way to escape scrutiny if you are a national or even a regional candidate.

Because, though she is intelligent to a point, she is often lacking in basic knowledge - a glaring flaw that showed up in the few interviews the GOP allowed.

And because a number of her views are too right-wing, even for a center or possibly right-center nation.

So, she may have excited certain elements within the GOP (and I am sure the GOP would have rather had the cameras not trained on some of those elements), but she scared the beejeebees out of IND voters who may have been hedging on Obama.

And if you recall, way back in September, as the world was fawning over Palin, I warned you about this.

I do not wish her ill-will, but I do think she should have had enough common sense to ahve turned down the VP offer in the first place. The fact that she grabbed at the offer so fast only goes to show that her enormous, and I mean, ENORMOUS ego and thirst for power are practically inquenchable - and the public smelled this scent durng the campaign, especially the IND voters, and they ran away from the GOP, and justfiably so.

I can only encourage my republican friends to make sure that their next candidate vets better, for this vetting was an absolute sham. And even the McCain team is starting to admit it.

But good to hear from you, wishing you all the best.

Unity '24 / "with muscles like these, no one will backtalk us".

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-10 @ 00:03:08

Here's an ESTIMATE of "undervotes" which are ballots that did not register a choice for the Senate election: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AE8P80
According to AP: "Statewide, more than 18,000 of those ballots came from counties won by Obama. About 6,100 were in counties won by Republican John McCain."

These ballots were 'counted' in that they were run through the scan machines. The assumption is that 20-30,000 people didn't take the trouble to vote and then purposefully NOT vote in the very competitive Senate race. Counterpoint - it was anasty race, and perhaps more than usual were turned off enough to purposely not vote for either candidate. We won't know until the ballots are recounted BY HAND, beginning 11/19, to determine if some voters marked the ballots in a way that was not picked up by the machines.
A Kos blogger opines that as absentee ballots have to arrive by election day, and that MN has same day registration, all such ballots have already been counted.

If you are not registered to vote or need to update your registration information, you may do so at your local polling location on Election Day. However, you are required to provide proof of residence when registering on Election Day.>

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. While this covers the majority of provisionals, there are other reasons for provisionals to be cast. Also, absentee votes can be recieved, but not make it to the proper precinct in time. There may yet be a few provisionals and absentees out there, but probably not many.

THe Begich campaign believes that there are 60,000 (and possibly as many as 70,000) absentee, early, and provisional ballots left to be counted in AK. I agree that Stevens has the edge, but that's a lot of ballots, and how many are early as opposed to absentee?

Last Edit: 2008-11-10 @ 00:31:52

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-10 @ 00:28:17

"Democrats....basically still the party of big government."

This is an odd claim, when recent Republican administrations have expanded the size of government much more than say the Clinton administration did. The question today is 'smart government' that serves the people.

In 2010, the GOP will have 19 seats to defend, including heavy hitters such as Vitter, Bunning, Grassley, and Voinovich. McCain and Spector could each face right wing primary challangers in addition to formidable Democratic foes. What are you going to run Hulshof against Bond? The Dems. will have 12 seats up. You point to a couple of potential interesting races, Dorgan-Hoeven and Huckabee-Lincoln. On the whole, it appears that the GOP will have to work hard not to loose another 2 or three seats.

DITTO Bonn.

Last Edit: 2008-11-10 @ 00:28:48

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-10 @ 02:42:09

I could be wrong, but I have heard Mc Cain was going to retire in 2010. I cant blame him after this loss Id want to go hide under my bed.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-10 @ 04:26:14

McCain and Specter could retire indeed. Two more moderates down. And they could well be both defeated if they don't. If we ran any good candidate in PA (i.e. NOT Chris Matthews) and Napolitano in AZ, these should be two safe pick-ups. I don't know about Voivonich, but if he retires, that seat could well go down as well. Anyway, I wouldn't be too sad if those three remained in the Senate. The GOP needs more like them.

And the reason the GOP needs the equivalent of Blue Dogs -call that Rockefellers- is they will NOT pick-up Chuck Schumer's seat anytime soon, even with Giuliani, without that sort of candidate.

Arkansas -I'd say Blanche Lincoln is quite safe even from Huckabee. She's a popular Blue Dog.

North Dakota -I don't know the dynamics but that would be fun to watch.

Missouri -Hulshof will have to wait until 2012 and might well defeat Claire McCaskill. A lot will depend on the presidential election.

Bonn, I agree on Palin and hre thirst for power. But I disagree on her even relative intelligence. I would argue she does not have the intellectual ability to be anything more than governor of a small state. The GOP needs another candidate. I don't know what Jindal is worth, but he can't be worse except perhaps for his origins which will be a tough sell with a whole wing of the party.

By:whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-11-10 @ 04:36:47

If I were a betting man I would bet on Stevens losing in Alaska due to early voting and absentee ballots. It sounds as if a substantial number are to be counted, and early voting seems to have largely favored Democrats in this cycle.

It is a sad matter of fact that many people that voted in the election proper will not vote in the runoff. This means the Georgia runoff will be determined by who can turn out their base more convincingly. That could very well go to Democrats.

Minnesota is a matter I refuse to touch with a 60 foot pole.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-10 @ 10:55:29

@CR- RE Palin- As I've said, I think she is a nice person, but some of her views I find VERY extreme and she as I found out more about her, she is one of the reasons I didn't vote. I didn't support Hillary to have Palin's extreme views in the White House. What really shocked me reg. Palin was her general lack of knowledge regarding anything besides energy policy. She is NOT a stupid woman, she simply has a narrow scope of issues. What appears very extreme are her view on climate change and abortion (more conservative than Bush). The woman was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, home of the Iditarod. The race has been moved north to Willow, Alaska, because Wasilla no longer has adequate snow cover in winter, yet she doesn't believe the earth is warming. lol... Also, she believes that women who are victims of rape should actually be forced to carry a pregancy to term? I agree that we should do what we can to cut abortion rates, but the psychological turmoil a raped woman faces by carrying that pregnancy to term is often extreme and not for Sarah Palin to decide. It is also apparent that this was the year of candidates with strange and extreme churches. I'm not a particular fan of organized religion, therefore churches like Palins and Obamas turn me off to those candidates VERY quickly!!!

Senate Races- I'm not placing bets on MN. I think it could go either way, but I don't like the way Coleman is all of a sudden becoming defensive. Sounds like he's nervous. Georgia is dependant on turnout but I cant imagine African Americans coming out in support of Martin. I think the early absentee votes should favor Stevens in that they were cast before the conviction.

What is interesting is that the 2010 Senate races look almost as bad for the GOP as 2006 and 2008. Again the GOP is defending 19 seats compared to 15 for the Dems. So unless Obama is a complete failure in 2 years, I would have to go with the Dems getting over 60 in 2010. There are quite a few endangered Repubs in 2010- Bond, Specter, Voinovich, Gregg, McCain, Martinez, etc... Many Repubs have favorabilities under 50%. That's alarming. I saw some very early polling in Ohio that showed Voinovich vulnerable against SOS Jennifer Brunner and Rep. Ryan. Also McCain looks vulnerable against Napolitano, Judd Gregg look vulnerable against Governor Lynch, and Bond looks vulnerable against Dick Gephardt (if he chooses to run) and then, of course, there is Vitter! lol...

Last Edit: 2008-11-10 @ 10:58:16

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-10 @ 11:14:28

I agree. Its worth noting that while the Dems. took 6 GOP seats in 2006, they were actually defending more turf going in, 17-15. I also note that Martinez was on Meet the Press Sunday, and agreed with about everything Jim Clyburn had to say. No doubt he is goign to cozy up to the new administration as much as possible. CR would claim him to be a sellout for doing so, I suppose, and that if he looses its because he didn't run as a conservative. LOL.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-10 @ 11:47:56

The MN SOS updated there results this morning and Colemans lead shrank from 236 votes to 209 votes. Uh oh! Norm must be nervous and no recount yet!

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-10 @ 12:17:04

The republicans (conservatives) lost because they either didn't do what they claim, or the exact opposite. And the people finally caught on.

1) Huge government expansion.
2) Huge borrow and spend, with nothing to show for it.
3) Nothing on abortion, they increased.
4) Horrible on economy. Trickle down and supply side are complete failures.

Anyone know of any topic where the Republican/Conservative agenda triumphed? I can't think of any.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-10 @ 12:55:39

Well thats why they lost the votes of conservatives. Republican congressmen and Senators also lost in more moderate states and districts, i.e. Smith & Shays, because they were tied to the unpopular Republican administration and policies, despite their own moderate records. We saw the same thing in reverse in the South in the 80s and 90s. Conservative Democrats, or open seats in conservative districts, increasingly went to the GOP because of the national Democratic paty's liberal image.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-10 @ 13:59:40

Okay, So I'm a bit fixated on and somewhat confused about this Minnesota race. There is no recount yet, but the race keeps narrowing. Where are these ballots coming from? Does anyone know about the ballots from Minneapolis that Coleman had sued to not be counted?

looks like they found 3 more votes. 206 Coleman lead. This is too fun to watch! Come on Minnesota do it for Wellstone!

Last Edit: 2008-11-10 @ 16:39:22

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-10 @ 22:55:00

I respect Joe Lieberman for standing up to his own party and taking his own independent postions. I guess Im on the same journey he is questioning much of the foundation of the democratic party vs what they have become today. All while not really as open to joining the republican party entirely due to issues I disagree with there as well. I respect Joe's strength for not being pushed or pursuaded by big party leadership. A few years back I could not stand Joe and felt he was a traitor, now I understand and respect him.

Go Joe!!

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-10 @ 23:44:31

Yes, that's very honorable to campaign for reelection in the Democratic Senatrial primaries claiming you'd be more helpful to the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee, and instead endorse that nominee's opponent and disparage that nominee.

Please, no one likes Joe Lieberman. He is a horrible person whom I have never liked or trusted. He is going to end up retiring in shame.

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-10 @ 23:57:18

LOL.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-11 @ 00:01:16

Perhaps he'll run to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2012. He'll need a new job about then, anyway...

By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-11 @ 00:06:25

I'd be more then happy to support him !!although he will likely retire at that time. He has had a remarkable career and would have been a great Vice President. He puts principals before politics and party allegiance something not found in the partisan grid lock of Washington and the two party system.

By:demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-11 @ 05:04:29

Obviously Joe supported John as he was a long time friend, & he was disendorsed for his last run in the Senate by the local Democrats in Connecticut, who chose someone else more reflective of their views especially on the war in Iraq.
I suspect Joe was also in line for a nice job under a McCain administration.
4 years is an awfully long time in politics, but I think if the Republicans run Sarah Palin in 2012 going on her current form, they would loose even more.
The biggest problem for the Republicans is they are now mostly a Southern + some Rocky Mountain/Mid West states White Conservative Party that does not connect with most of America.
They have a shrinking base & unless they change & reach out to America's diversity & non White minorities they will continue to loose on a National level period.
The other big factor for them is the massive youth vote that came out in this election, they are America's future voters & they were 2/3 Democrat in the election.
The Republicans have some major soul searching to do, & I don't thinking going even more Conservative is going to do it. (I'm happy to see them do this as they will loose even more).
It's back to the Centre if they want to win, John McCain should never have pandered so badly to the right wing base of the party, in doing so, he lost moderates, & independents, & the election.
The fact is the base will always vote Republican anyway, they are hardly going to vote Democrat, & there was no Ross Perot in this election for them to run to.

Last Edit: 2008-11-11 @ 05:11:02

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-11 @ 10:52:30

It would be a terrible mistake to kick Joe Lieberman out of the Dem caucus, as liberal bloggers and anti-war activists are urging. Its just another sign of the growing intolerance in the Dem party due to liberals being "high on power." Joe Lieberman GAVE Dems the senate in 2006, despite the fact that that liberals booted him from the Dem party. He could have easily caucused with the GOP and you could have relied on Dick Cheney to do the tie-breaking. So, if liberals want to be as petty as conservatives and alienate moderates than so be it, but it is NOT in line with the rhetoric that Mr. Obama has been spewing forth for 2 years. Mr. Obama is the liberal leader that you have been waiting for and he was promised to reach out to Republicans and Joe Lieberman, much to your chagrin, I'm sure! If Mr. Obama can bury the hatchet with Lieberman, I think you should be able to.

Joe Lieberman agrees and votes with Dems on 90% of the issues!!! If Joe Lieberman gets the boot than I think Bob Casey needs to go for being anti-choice and Ben Nelson needs to go for being anti-gay rights. Joe Lieberman had the guts to speak the truth that Barack Obama is grossly unqualified for the job of POTUS and has NOT reached across the aisle as he has consistantly said. I guess if that is the criteria for the Lieberman witch hunt in the Dem party, then its time to boot the Clintons, and Joe Biden because they all said Barack Obama was NOT ready!!!

Joe Lieberman will not "hang himself." Sadly, his political career is over because he stood for his convictions, which is rare in a politician today. But its politics and he will likely be punished because the Dems no longer need him to have their 51 vote majority. And Of course anyone that dares to speak against or even question Obama has to be punished or destroyed and liberals are hungry for political blood.

This raises my longtime caveat of it depends how you define "the base". Several very high profile conservatives endorsed Obama, and I suspect their were more cross-overs this year than in any election since Reagan.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-11 @ 16:26:33

If Lieberman lovers want to defend a war monger then go right ahead. But it just shows the quality of your character.

I choose to stand for what is right, and I stand against one of the biggest moral outrages of US history, the Iraq War. Rates right behind killing off the Native Americans and slavery.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-11 @ 16:46:17

LOL, wonderful drama, Doni. Lieberman may vote with Dems. 90% of the time on Domestic issues, but not including foreign policy. No Dems wants to "kick Lieberman out of the caucus". The discussion is about removing him from a chairmanship of committees when he has shown himself to have deep disagreements on thise issues with most Dems., i.e. foreign policy issues, not "kicking him out of the caucus".

My point is, he's already hung himself. How do you suppose Connecticutt voters, who supported Obama by 60%+, view Lieberman, who campaigned on the notion that he was better suited to help the 2008 Democratic nominee than Lamont? He's alienated himself from Senate Democrats by breaking his oath not to speak ill of the Democratic nominee despite the fact he was supporting McCain. Now he wants to equate his Senate Chair positions with his membership in the caucus, when in reality he has no bargaining power.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-11 @ 17:11:51

Who cares about Lieberman? Seriously... Even if he were to bring a 60th vote... Which is as likely as his being reelected in 2012. That man is a political corpse. John McCain without the dignity. Lieberman was badly needed in 2007, and he took advantage of it. Now he's not needed anymore and he has been campaigning against his own caucus. The Dems don't really care but they feel they can give the chairmanship to a more loyal character. The GOP doesn't really care either now they're definitely a minority and most GOP Senators just won't see eye to eye with Lieberman. Everyone wanted him in 2007, now people don't really care what he thinks "unacceptable". It's life, Joe!

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-11 @ 17:17:15

@Wingindy- You are the one who said he reads sites like the dailykos, correct?. Are you reading what the liberals are saying about Lieberman? They don't want to just strip him of his chairmanship like Sen. Reid has suggested. The hard core liberals want him OUT OF THE DEM CAUCUS and they are calling their Dem senators about it! They are so hungry with power right now that they are willing to sacrifice the remote chance of a 60th seat by ditching Lieberman.

@Five- And for the record, you can attack my character, but your own beloved liberal president-elect, Barack Obama, whom you have so vehemently supported the past two years has stated he WANTS Lieberman in the caucus!!! So, dare I speak against the "one the world has been waiting for" when I say maybe Mr. Obama has a character flaw if he is willing to defend Mr. Lieberman. Or on the other hand perhaps many of you are just very angry, sore winners, and hell bent on revenge for the past 8 years and don't have the common decency to bridge the gap with the other side like Mr. Obama has suggested you do? That is what Mr. Obama has suggested, correct- "working across the aisle." That is the bullshit we've had to listen to for two years, correct?

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-11 @ 17:42:03

Lieberman is a dick, but Obama is right. Why get rid of him when he supports the dems 90% of the time? The Dems shouldn't shoot themselves in the foot over this. They can always get rid of him later, if he turns into more of a liability.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-11 @ 17:47:04

Obama can want Lieberman in the caucus all he wants. I am talking about Liebermans character and moral failures.

And I agree with satyrday, he should stay in the caucus if he wants, but he should NOT be in charge of ANYTHING to do with this war, he has proven to be immoral on it.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-11 @ 22:07:26

So if Obama says its okay to keep Lieberman in the Dem caucus and/or allow him to chair the Homeland Security/Govt Affiars Committee its okay? Isn't a bit hypocritical that Obama, with all his "foresight" in opposing the war in 2002, would support this person with such a lack of "character and morality" to maintain his chairmanship? If the war is the measure in which we guide ones morality and if the war truely was "immoral" shouldn't Obama see to it that those who executed the war not be in power? That is why liberals supported him and he won, correct? He had the brilliance, wisdom, integrity and foresight to oppose the war, in his liberal Chicago district, that Clinton and McCain didn't have! lol.. Thus saith the Lord, Obama.

Last Edit: 2008-11-11 @ 22:08:08

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-11 @ 23:08:04

Obama has said Lieberman should remain in the caucus. He has not given an opinion on chairmanships, and recognizes that as a matter for the Senate itself to decide.

Drama Doni.

No Drama Obama.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-12 @ 04:31:15

Just shows that Obama thinks before he speaks and deliberates like a serious human being before making decisions. Also shows a big heart and a willingness to work with both sides of the aisle - exactly as Obama promised, btw.

I missed McCain's percentage. But am only 0.16% away from Obama's percentage. And these numbers will change again a number of times. The statistical probablility is extremely high that Obama comes up to at least 52.70%.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-12 @ 05:04:53

OY!!!! OY!!!! OY!!!!!

I am not 100% sure how many more votes are out there to count, but assuming that a number of states use the 10 day rule to count absentee ballots or military ballots, spread over 50 state plus DC, I can imagine that easily 800,000-900,000 ballots are still yet to be tabulated. That would average to 17,647 per "state". Wait and see. But soon we will have the official results and the whole world will know.

But I just did blitzmath in my head and came to a startling conclusion, based on the current PV total of 66,115,514 for Obama. If Barack Obama gets just 484,486 of those remaining votes to be tabulated, then his vote tally comes to:

66,600,000 votes

Those who know the Book of Revelations out of the Christian Bible (the final book, called "Die Offenbarung Johannes" in german) know immediately what these first three digits have been interpreted to mean. I can see and "hear" the propaganda for the extreme-right and the religious right already revving up.

Mark my words: there will be op-eds and write ups about this in certain circles, as soon as the final vote comes in, for I think that Obama will come it at either just below or just above 66.6 million votes.

My statistical response as a thinking american: fascinating.

My response as a jew: OY!

When the right-wing press kicks into overdrive about this, just remember who reported it first: good old, mild mannered Bonncaruso.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-12 @ 10:31:11

@Wing- cute comments! We really are overdue for another Jonestown. Hint... Hint.. Hint. :) That said, Mr. Obama is still a member of the US Senate and when it convenes, before his swearing in, he will likely need to take part in the secret ballot, deciding whether or not Mr. Lieberman maintains his chairmanship.

@bonn and wing- I'm not condemning Mr. Obama's position on Mr. Lieberman. I agree with Mr. Obama. We have heard Mr. Obama go on and on and on about "working across the aisle" and I think this would be an excellent example of what he has promised to deliver. What I find disturbing is the intense hatred developing on the left for Mr. Lieberman or anyone who has disagreements with Mr. Obama. If Mr. Obama is willing to bridge the gap with Mr. Lieberman, shouldn't his supporters? After all, the reason so many on the left supported Mr. Obama was because he wasn't a "partisan," correct? From what I've seen so far, I agree that Mr. Obama appears to be willing to work across the aisle, but why aren't his supporters willing to work across the aisle? Lieberman can't be a scapgoat for angry liberals. Hopefully Mr. Obama's supporters will learn a lesson in tolerance from him.

Last Edit: 2008-11-12 @ 10:31:49

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-12 @ 11:19:00

And DoniKi, I am agreeing with you. After long absence, it is good to "see" you out there.

And Lieberman did what he thought he should do. I can't fault him for it, but I can also understand some of the antipathy for him in the DEM tent as well.

And Obama, quiet and thoughtful as ever, will make gold out of hay.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-12 @ 14:57:49

THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE (continuing update):

The final national polls on 11/03-11/04 had an average of +7.54, and I made the following prediction:

Obama: 52.77%

McCain:45.23%

Other: 2%

As of 11/12, 14:30 EDT, the PV and percentages:

Candidate

Pop. Vote

%

Pop. Margin

% Margin

Obama (D)

66,354,771

52.66%

+8,336,450

+6.61%

McCain (R)

58,018,321

46.05%

Nader (I)

691,277

0.55%

Barr (L)

507,495

0.40%

Baldwin (C)

180,864

0.14%

McKinney (G)

150,427

0.12%

Other

97,430

0.08%

Total

126,000,585

100.00%

Comparison: my projection to current results:

Candidate

Current %

Bonncaruso's prediction:

Difference:

Obama (D)

52.66%

52.77%

-0.11%

McCain (R)

46.05%

45.23%

+0.82

All others

1.29%

2.00%

-0.71%

Comparison to 2004:

Year

Democratic:

Republican:

All Others:

Total:

2008

66,354,771

58,018,321

1,627,493

126,000,585

2004

59,028,439

62,040,610

1,224,499

122,293,548

Difference:

+7,326,332

-4,022,289

+402,994

+3,707,037

Tendency: rising for Obama.

I missed McCain's percentage. But am only 0.11% away from Obama's percentage. And these numbers will change again a number of times. The statistical probability is extremely high that Obama comes up to at least 52.70%.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-12 @ 20:39:05

Is Anybody out there??? Are ya'll watching the Alaska Senate race? This is just incredible! Begich up by 3 votes! lol... I though Minnesota was entertaining. The Dems are going to win this Alaska Senate seat! The bulk of the remaining vote that is NOT counted is coming out of Dem districts. There's 58! Can't the Minnesota SOS come up with 207 Dem votes for Franken? :) Bye bye Ted!

Last Edit: 2008-11-12 @ 20:40:04

By:colin (R-ON) 2008-11-13 @ 09:52:34

Five...the point is, you are more than welcome to have your views and it is your right to express them. Maybe people would listen more if you presented them with class?

By the way...I am GAY...there is no need to get into this whole thing again...but don't assume that all gay people are Democrats or support them...

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-13 @ 16:20:21

colin, I never assumed all gay people are democrats. But I do assume that gay people who support Republicans are supporting people who think you are a worthless, disease infested enemy of humanity.

As I have always said, if you are a gay person and you think the Republicans really care about you, go to a Republican rally holding your boyfriends hand and see how long you last. If you can't even support your own party while expressing one of the most basic expressions of your humanity, your love with your partner, there is something wrong with the party you belong to, and with you for wanting to belong to that party.

By:jamespol (I-MO) 2008-11-18 @ 13:49:05

lol ConservRep, Kenny Hulsof is a LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER! lmao !

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-11-18 @ 14:46:54

Well they are verifying the vote in MN to be Coleman 206 victor then on to the recount...2/3 of votes that were undercounted were from Democratic districts...a local news talk show on PBS had all commentators predicting a Franken victory.

The undercount in MN is those votes which people did not cast in the senate seat while voting for President OR the machine did not count the vote because of light shading the box, 'x'ing the box or checking the box. The intent will be decided by neutral parties with many onlookers-all recounts are open to the public-anyone.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-18 @ 15:06:26

Franken will win, because he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-19 @ 00:33:22

Damn I hate Franken!!!!!!!!!!!

What a NUTCASE. Those crazy Minnesotans need more sunlight.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-19 @ 11:29:11

Liberalrocks- I agree Franken is sort of whack, but why is Coleman throwing around lawsuits everytime ballots come out in Frankens' favor? It reminds me of a few people. :) If Minnesotans voted for Franken, that is their choice. Lets let all the votes come in from Minnesota!!!

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-19 @ 22:59:29

CR: (Liberalrocks now Indi-rocks)

Hey my friend, What can I say "I feel your pain" too. If your not too busy and able to read this congrats on Mc Cain-Palin eeking out a win in your home state. I am at least glad for you that your home state didnt go blue as this election has been extremely disappointing for me and now you on more levels then one. We both didnt get our first picks in nominees and we both lost in our joint pick for president this fall. Try not to be discouraged at all a week is a lifetime in politics and Obama has a lot on his plate so we will see if he has what it takes and can really walk the walk. The republicans have a lot of work to do to appeal to the moderate center again and win back those key swing voters they lost in this mantra of "change" I still admire Governor Palin I dont care what anyone says. Sure she has her faults and I tease her like any politician. I dont agree with her on a couple of social stances but fiscally I very much do. We need the reform she has delivered to Alaska. I think she was unfairly labeled by liberals as socially extreme. I didnt get that impression of her at all. She came off very tolerant in the debate with Biden. We cant all agree on every social issue but we must work together to find common ground. I think she has what it takes she just needs to rebuild a name for herself and stay somewhat in the national dialog. From what ive seen after the election she has had no problem doing that! Funny how the media is -now- being fair to her after their man has won huh. I think she has a future in the party and possibly as the nominee depending on how well Obama does and clearly she has the aspirations. I would be very open to supporting her and giving her a chance in 2012. It all depends on again how things go I still am no Obama fan and am having a hard time giving him a chance as I see still a big ego and no accomplishments to show for it but he may prove me wrong and im open to that.

Palin 2012?...Perhaps.

Last Edit: 2008-11-19 @ 23:15:43

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-19 @ 23:03:16

Sorry about Kenny Hulsof as well, Jay Nixon will really have to perform as governor but with Missouri tilting slighty right of center I say republicans will still have a shot at unseating him next go round. Hang in there my friend... Im disappointed with all this too,, Now lets see these democrats perform huh.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-19 @ 23:35:04

I wish I could make an Obama vs. Palin 2012 map right now! It would be 2008 +AZ, MT, MO, & GA (unless Newt is her running mate) & perhaps SC & the Dakotas, all to Obama.

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-20 @ 00:06:50

Obama has been president for how long? ...Im still waiting for the first national crisis before I consider his re-election a done deal. Then ofcourse theres that little problem with the economy he has to deal with.

Enjoy your time Wing it will not all be roses ahead for the messiah. The presidency is not a rock concert he has still a lot to learn.

So no I would not count Palin out just yet. A presidents re-election mainly has to do with their record and a vote on their success or failures not on the administration prior to theirs. Obama will have to run on his own record and the world of 2012 not Bush and 2008.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-20 @ 01:51:47

And Palin has been the unsuccessful running mate how long? Speaking of having a lot to learn....

National crises? He made the right call on Iraq 6 years ago, and his response to the financial crisis was pretty solid as well.

True enough - it will not be all roses. The President-elect has been very upfront about the challanges and difficulties we face.

I couldn't resist the counter to someone getting ahead of themselves...

By:jamespol (I-MO) 2008-11-20 @ 01:58:06

liberalrocks, jay nixon will be the best governor ever. despite what u say

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-20 @ 03:09:54

Never mind that, James, Nixon's crime is probably that he supported Obama too early on... He won big while Obama lost small, so I guess it means he's well liked in MO, probably with reason.

Last Edit: 2008-11-20 @ 03:11:44

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-20 @ 10:59:22

Not to change the subject but getting back to the Franken thing... Apparently Coleman's lead is down from 215 to 174- with 18% recounted. Where are these votes coming from? I heard they were in "red areas" of MN, but St. Louis county was counted and that's not a "red area." Has Minneapolis been recounted yet? I read that Franken met with Sen. Feinstein and said he was "cautiously optimistic" about the recount. Any one have news from MN?

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-20 @ 12:37:05

Well I heard that with 23% recounted Coleman was ahead by 3-4 points BUT since I don't know how those precincts voted the first time the info is worthless. I guess we just have to wait until the end of the recount process. As long as there are thousands of votes to be counted and the difference is a question of hundreds we won't be able to tell anyway.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-20 @ 15:26:17

@Frenched- Yes, but that 3-4% is w/out the Minn/St.Paul. It looks like most of the precincts that are counted as of right now are more rural, aside from Duluth. The Star Tribune has Coleman with a lead of 165 with more votes being added for Franken in St. Louis Cty (Duluth) due to old/bad scanning machine errors. There are hundreds of "disputed" ballots from both campaigns and it looks like this could go on forever!

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-20 @ 17:55:42

Indeed. May come down to those 32 ballots.

Get your popcorn and tea. This is gonna be fun.

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-20 @ 23:04:01

If nutcase Franken steals this I hope Coleman sues his ass and this drags out. There proably stuffing ballots and the obama campaign aka ACORN proably hired the recount workers...just kidding.

No Franken is a nutcase!! democrat or republican, I have heard many of his views on liberal talk radio air america when he held the prime slot a few years back.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-21 @ 00:29:53

Yea. And Al is quite sane and normal and is actually pretty center left.

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-21 @ 01:10:13

LOL Well if you say he is then I know he is borderline communistic.

Thanks for the clarity.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-21 @ 10:05:40

Liberalrocks- (I refuse to call you indi) ;) Okay, I can see where this is going- our first fight! :) It was actually Coleman that has been sueing to stop ballots from being counted in Hennepin County, which is Minneapolis and heavily Dem. There were 32 ballots that a poll worker originally left in her car in Minneapolis- by mistake- that were sent to be counted within the appropriate 24 hour time frame, but were not included in the orginal vote. Coleman sued to stop those votes from being counted.

I think you could flip a coin on this race, but the recount is definitely working in Frankens favor. The majority of urban Dem votes from St. Louis, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties have NOT been recounted, yet Franken gained about 80 votes, mostly in Ramsey County. Some suburban sections of Minneapolis dont' start counting until next week and even more parts of the state dont start the recount until Dec. 1. This could go on a long time. Also you have almost 1000 votes that are being challanged by both campaigns, which would go before a 5 member panel. And then you have to take into account Minnesota law, which is very liberal in interpreting ballots. As long as voter intent can be determined on the ballot, the ballot counts by Minnesota law, which means many of the challanged ballots could actually determine the race.

Re: Franken. I'm not saying that he's a great candidate. He's certainly left of the main stream and can come across as obnoxious, IMO... I think Minnesota deserved better than Franken and Coleman. My point is that if Franken did receive more votes than its no ones problem but the state of MN. Same with Coleman!

Last Edit: 2008-11-21 @ 10:09:31

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-21 @ 11:30:58

See, the problem with you nuts and your name calling of "whacko left", "communists", "socialists" is that you can never come up with a single example of how these people who you are poking fun at are out of touch. All you do is insult them and call them names. What is so whacko about Frankin? He wants universal health care? He wants the troops home from Iraq? He actually listens to Republicans and converses with them on his radio show in a respectful manner? He believes in gay rights? He agrees with Hillary Clinton on almost everything? Oh, wow, man, that Frankin sound so CRAZY. All those things he is for are so whacko and dangerous!

See, all you people do is call people names, and you have no evidence to back up your empty insults. And this empty label of "communist" "socialist" and "far left san fransisco liberal" doesn't work anymore. People on the whole are not falling for it anymore.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-21 @ 11:34:33

The thing that is so infuriating is that Franken has been demonized for no good reason, with no good evidence, despite his respect and good will, and there were actually some crazy, whacko people on Air America radio who can be fairly categorized as so. Namely Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy.

The hatred of Al Frankin is simply just another example of an empty smear campaign by Republicans of fear and name calling with zero substance. Just like they did to Dean and Kerry and *tried* to do with Obama. Only Obama was way to smooth for that crap.

By:satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-21 @ 12:32:17

The biggest socialist in this past election is Sarah Palin.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-21 @ 14:38:42

I do NOT believe that Franken is some left-wing, pinko commie, but I think that Franken set a certain tone for himself in regards to Air America. I did NOT listen to Air America very much, but did hear it on occassion. It appeared to me that there was some considerable anger on Air America, much like on Right-Wing radio. The hosility/anger on the fringes is remarkable and I think Franken's persona is equated with the fringe of the Dem party because of Air America. It wouldn't be much different if Rush Limbaugh ran for Senate!

Sarah is NOT a Socialist! She is a moose hunter! And dontya forget it! Stop imposing on her right to hunt wolves from her helicopter!

Last Edit: 2008-11-21 @ 14:40:45

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-21 @ 16:06:47

I took satyrday's comment to reflect Palin's distribution of oil profits in Alaska. The huntin moose from a helicoptor gives a better visual. You betcha.

NYT is reporting that two Clinton aides have confirmed that she has accepted the SOS position. A great cabinet shaping up, IMHO.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-21 @ 16:20:37

Re: Franken. I don't want to spoil the fun here guys, but I don't think you can objectively define Franken or indeed any one else. Everyone sees this in relation to their own political thinking: five who is very much left wing says he is left of center, and liberal-turned-indi who is -let's say a moderate thinks he's very left wing. So what?
A few points, however:
-I only give -ist names to people when they actually claim it themselves. For instance, Bernie Sanders says he is a democratic socialist, fine, he's a socialist. But when somebody like Franken or Obama is called a socialist, it's just name-calling, because you can't tell in their stead what ideology they believe in. It's much like calling conservatives fascists.
-I agree with doniki about extremism, though in the US I'd be very much a left-wing extremist -since over here I'm more like right-of-center or center-of-center I know what moderates feel like and though partisanship isn't so violent over here (no culture war...) I dare say it still looks quite pointless sometimes. Not to mention extremism -you have two straight parties but we in France have micro-parties who are either Fourth International (left of the commies, if you can picture that) or downright racist (think an Anti-Semite version of Tom Tancredo).

Glad to know Clinton will according to all probability be SOS. It's a fair choice, and I think American diplomacy will greatly redeem itself with the Obama-Clinton-Biden team.

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-21 @ 16:45:14

Can you imagine Obama and Biden saying, "Hillary, we want you to go here/there and do this/ that." She's going to laugh in their face. LOL... I have no idea how it serves either one of them, but so be it! This is actually working out better then I thought. This is much more like a 3rd Clinton term, which I wanted. I'm not bitching yet, but give me 24 hours because usually it takes about that long for me to start liking Obama before I think "Oh god, what an asshole." I'm really trying to give him a chance. I need to go to Sarah Palins church so I can pray to tolerate Obama.

Back to Minnesota. Does anyone know the latest. Now each campaign is apparently disagreeing with the MN SOS totals. It appears with about 50% of the vote recounted, Coleman leads by about 140, but the Franken campaign says its under 100. Most of the area that remains to be counted appears to lean Dem. This is fun to watch.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-21 @ 16:50:46

'Can you imagine Obama and Biden saying, "Hillary, we want you to go here/there and do this/ that." '

No. It just doesn't work that way. I think Obama, Biden and Clinton are going to debate on near equal terms, because Obama is the most senior cabinet member and Biden and Clinton have the necessary experience. Once a decision is reached, they will all keep to it. Of course, if there is a disagreement, the President gets the final say, ergo Clinton will have to do what he says but not as a silly errand.

Doniki -if I got to like Clinton, you might get to like Obama... just kidding. I merely hope IF his administration is successful you'll be with the Democrats again in 2012.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-21 @ 22:24:53

Doniki, exactly, you do not listen to Franken on the radio or Air America much so you don't know what you are talking about, just like everyone who has something bad to say about Frankin has spent little or *no* time actually listening ot him. If they did they would see he is actually a really nice guy.

Now there WERE some really bad apples on Air America, angry, hateful and irrational people who are of almost the same calibre as Limbaugh or Hannity. Like I said, namely Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy.

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-21 @ 22:41:48

He's a far left lunatic that has conspiracy idea after conspiracy idea about various branches of the us government even before W. He ofcourse had to let all his theories go during his run for senate no doubt.

He shared air space with anger anti-authority anti government far left loons like Randi Rhodes Stephanie Miller and Mike Malloy...That station is just as wacked as Limbaugh.

I actually am getting to like conservative Larry Elder hes a local Los Angeles african american who was against obama.

By:FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-21 @ 23:13:02

Bitterness

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-21 @ 23:28:59

Its called my opinion five like it or not.

Last Edit: 2008-11-21 @ 23:29:37

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-21 @ 23:32:26

I really cant stand Stephanie Miller lets all hope she doesnt ever run for anything or the two guys that sit with her on that show in the morning they have some liberal comedy show they were really cruel and unfair to Hillary during the primaries but behold after she endorsed the messiah she could do no wrong in Stephanies eye's anymore.

There are just tons of factoids in this report that will fascinate. I encourage all to read the whole report.

There are some other factiods that I am first pre-releasing only on this website.

Go to my blog and notice on the large table that:

-the percentages and margins for WA an ME, the two most far-flung continental states, extreme NW and extreme NE, are almost identical to each other.

-Obama beat McCain WEST of the Mississippi river: 97 EV to 85 EV. This is the first time since 1992 that a DEMOCRAT won west of the Mississippi. Not only that, he one every single state west of the Mississippi with a landslide (yes, including CO).

-Obama won all of the NORTHEAST (Aceola) and all of the rust-belt/mid-west states (depending on how you categorize the Dakotas, there is not concensus on this point). By winning IN, this is the first time since 1964 that a DEMOCRAT has won such a long stretch of contiguous states. Not even FDR won this configuration of states, either in 1932, 1936, 1940 or 1944. FDR won more states, but not this configuration.

"The national popular vote will most likely go over 128 million and Obama will probably hit 67.6 or 67.7 million. I bet his percentage will come closer to the 52.77% that I predicted on Nov. 3rd for Nov. 4th. Wait and see."

Obama is currently at 52.74%. I predicted 52.77%, so we only have 0.03% more to go before it's a lock!!!

Obama is close to breaking Bush's PV record by 6,000,000 votes. He may also surpass a 9 million vote plurality over McCain.

Last Edit: 2008-11-23 @ 01:45:27

By:doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-22 @ 08:17:07

@Five- Yes, you are right and there is a reason I DID NOT listen to Air America, much like why I refuse to listen to other partisans on the left like Olbermann or partisans on the fringe of the right like Limbaugh or Hannity. The fringes of both parties DO NOT speak for the majority. They are so passionate about certain special interets (war, social issues) that they forget about what actually matter to the majority of Americans. They are so content to voice their hate (and it is hate) on the opposing party that they forget they aren't speaking for anyone but a narrow minded group of intolerant, hateful, bitter, and callous super minority on either side.

I don't know wahty is going to happen in MN. It appears Coleman lead has shrunk to about 120 and we have yet to count Minneapolis. There are 1000 plus questioned ballots. Coleman's lead will probably shrink more and it will come down to a 5 memeber panel to decide on the "intent" of these challanged votes. In Frankens defense, Many are very frivilous, espcially due to the fact that Coleman is actually challanging all ballots where the voter voted for McCain/Palin for President and Franken for Senate. PEOPLE CROSS PARTY LINE ALL THE TIME!!! But that said, Al Franken was probably the worst candidate that the Dems could have put up. He's not taken seriously because he is associated with these fringe people and goes around MN saying "I sure as hell am not scared of Norm Coleman." Norm Coleman has an approval rating in the 40%'s. He should have been beaten handidly like Sununu and Smith.

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-22 @ 09:30:25

I'm afraid you're very right on Franken, Doniki. This was an easy pick-up, Coleman was elected by accident and would have been repudiated handily by the people of Minnesota had the DFL not come up with that guy. They had other options, and Kay Hagan has proven even state senators without name recognition can put up great efforts and great campaigns.

On a lighter note, we in France just had a very similar situation happening today for the election of the French Socialist Party First Secretary -in other words, the party leader. This is like a national caucus, with all party activists voting for the First Secretary election. The run-off pitched the 2007 PS candidate Ségolène Royal against former Labor Minister Martine Aubry.

Aubry apparently won with a 42-vote (or 0.03%) margin with 100% of the precincts reporting and over 130,000 votes cast.

This is so preposterous and hilarious I'm more and more tilting toward re-electing our conservative President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in 2012. At least I'll have a chance to be GOVERNED by someone then. Not like this creepy Brezhnevian idiots playing politics like silly model UN kids.

By:wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-23 @ 01:31:27

Franken is a comedian, for crissakes. Many understandably did not take him seriously. The other strong candidate as I recall, dropped out in the face of Fraken's financing. There was also a credible option in a strong independent candidate, in a state with a very strong independent streak. I'd say Franken has done pretty good for a comedian turned politician, and my guess is he wins after challanges are determined. But these counts are virtually meaningless, as they don't count ANY of the challanged votes, as opposed to counting them provisionally upon the local determination. 538 has a good piece on this.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-23 @ 02:21:28

So, I have already finished crunching all the numbers for all states, as of midnight between Nov. 22 and Nov. 23, EDT.

Here they are. The font is very small to accomodate a large table. If you are using Firefox, „Ctrl +“ will enlarge the whole thing for you. If you are using IE 8, there is a magnifying symbol at the bottom right hand corner of your browser, similar story for Opera 9.

The table is, I believe, unique in the internet as it gives a direct comparison to 2004, both in raw numbers and in percentages and also in partisan shift.

The blue numbers are democratic, the red numbers are republican, and the bold numbers are those of the winner.

The columns to the left that are shaded in grey indicate a final tally, no more updates are expected from these states.

Nationally, if my projection of 52.76% for Obama holds (this is only 0.01% away from my prediction, btw), then this means that the DEMS gained 4.49% in the national popular vote over 2004, the GOP lost 4.87% over 2004 and the IND (other) vote gained 0.38% over 2004. The margin difference means that the DEMS came from 3 million behind in 2004 to almost 9 million ahead in 2008, an almost 12,000,000 vote shift. Translated into %, that would be the so-called partisan shift. If Obama holds at 52.76%, then the partisan shift in the nation would be +9.36.

On to Arkansas. Since there are so very few states where Obama got less votes than Kerry did in 2004, I have underlined those examples (AR, LA, OK, WV).

Look at CA. Currently, only 360,480 more votes than in 2004. I suspect that yet more votes are to come in from California. Obama's percentage in CA is the second highest for any DEM in history (after 1936) and the fifth highest for any candidate of any party. His margin is the third highest in the history of the state (after 1936, 1928).

I believe that seeing the difference this way in hard cold numbers is very illustrating.

Comparison - my projection to current results that I have found:

Candidate

Current %

Bonncaruso's prediction:

Difference:

Obama (D)

52.76%

52.77%

-0.01%

McCain (R)

45.86%

45.23%

+0.63

All others

1.38%

2.00%

-0.62%

This puts my projection from Nov 4th (before the polls closed) just 0.01% off from reality. I still missed McCain's margin by more than ½ point (which is more than just statistical noise), but my topline for Obama was right on the money.

Nice job Bonn. The percentage predictions for both candidates is extraordinary. The prediction for Obama is mind boggling.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-11-24 @ 16:40:44

According to BALLOT ACCESS NEWS, the official canvas from the state of California will not come out until December 13th, which is a Saturday.

There is disagreement as to why this is so. The American Independent Party of CA is claiming that one democratic elector who had been submitted to be on the slate of electors was not correctly registered in Los Angeles County.

Others argue that the deluge of absentee ballots is taking time to sort out.

I think that both arguments have enough holes in them to pass for swiss cheese.

Anyhow, no official report from me until after December 13th, apparently, since the report can't be made until all data is cast in stone. Hmmmm.....

By:CR (--MO) 2008-12-03 @ 16:08:46

The first victory of the Rebuild! Republicans win the Georgia Senate race! Filibuster, in theory if nothing else, is maintained. This may or may not have an effect on Minnesota but if Coleman is victorious then we'll have a 42 seat base to work off of come 2010.

And the Rebuild continues.

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-12-03 @ 23:13:01

Liberalrocks Now Indi-Rocks,

Well CR congrats on Saxby and I have a hunch Coleman may pull this thing off just yet. I dont like Saxby but i do like Coleman. Its very important that Obama not have a complete blank check for "change". While im very pleased that Hillary will be secretary of state she still will have to answer to the "one". He is still calling the shots and to that I say-

Palin 2012.

By:bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-12-06 @ 08:52:53

THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE UPDATE:

Currently, Obama's national average, which was at +6.98 on 12/02, has moved to +7.16, a margin jump of +0.18 in four days: The current national percentages and margin are pretty much in the middle between Obama's win in VA (+6.30) and CO (+8.95) and is now coming closer and closer to the national poll averages from 11/03.

If Obama holds at +7.16, then the national partisan shift from 2004 to 2008 would be: +9.62 (+7.16 - (-2.46) = +9.62)

The final national polls on 11/03-11/04 had an average of +7.54, and I made the following prediction:

Obama: 52.77%

McCain:45.23%

Other: 2%

As of 12/06, 08:00 EDT, the PV and percentages:

Candidate

Pop. Vote

%

Pop. Margin

% Margin

Total

130,700,139

100.00%

--

--

Obama (D)

69,077,276

52.85%

+9,361,935

+7.16%

McCain (R)

59,715,341

45.69%

Other:

1,907,522

1.46%

Comparison - my projection to current results:

Candidate

Current %

Bonncaruso's prediction:

Difference:

Obama (D)

52.85%

52.77%

+0.08%

McCain (R)

45.69%

45.23%

+0.46%

All others

1.46%

2.00%

-0.54%

Comparison to 2004:

Year

Democratic:

Republican:

All Others:

Total:

2008

69,077,276

59,715,341

1,907,522

130,700,139

2004

59,028,439

62,040,610

1,224,499

122,293,548

Difference:

+10,048,837

-2,325,269

+683,023

+8,406,591

Tendency: Obama has moved above the 52.77% I predicted. Good for him, bad for me :) :) So, I have currently missed his winning percentage by 0.08%, but am now less than one half point away from McCain's percentage. If this trend continues for the remaining official results/canvasses, then Obama could rise to 52.87%-52.88% and McCain may sink to 45.67%-45.68%, so the margin may hit an even +7.20 for Obama.

Other than CA and TX, most of the big states have either final results or official canvasses. I suspect that there are less than 500,000 votes remaining outstanding, but we will probably go over 131 million votes in 2008. CA will put out it's official canvass on 12/13.

By:CR (--MO) 2009-01-31 @ 16:25:08

Fellow Republicans and conservatives I've been doing a lot of researching and thinking since we lost the election and I've come to some final conclusions about where are now and where we are going. I wanted to share those final thoughts with you and hopefully offer up some encouragement.

As you all know, the government of the United States is now firmly in the hands of the Democratic party and liberals. That is what the American people choose in 2006 and in 2008. The Republican party has been decimated and routed. In just two elections all our sucesses of the elections of the 1980's and 1994-1996 have been undone. We lay in ruin. Now I don't think it is necessarily because a huge majority of the country is now liberal but because the Republican party has put forth such a poor alternative for really about the last decade or so.

I've been looking at older versions of my presidential maps from this past election cycle and I've come to conclude that the most accurate maps and assessments of the election where versions 27 to 30, with number 29 being the most accurate in thought and map-wise (only MO, AR, KY, WV, and IN are wrong on that map for an EV of 383 to 155). I wish I had stuck with that frame of mind, however, the Palin nomination, energy issues from the summer, and a track record in American history of rejecting left-wing candidates clouded my judgement.

Put quite simply I forget the most basic reality in Politics 101: when the economy goes bad, the party in the White House suffers. Bush was already unpopular and a drag. Despite that our numbers in September lead me to believe that we might have been able to pull off an up set. I was wrong. The economic collapse in October followed by a horrid GOP response from both Bush and McCain was the nail in the coffin. McCain really was just a continuation of Bush. My earily views of McCain were realized (see above mentioned versions). You can't just be a moderate in a party who's rank and file really don't like you and then pull a last minute conversion to conservatism and hope to win an election. Many in the base where very excited about Palin but in the end she was not eough. To be sure though, without Palin, McCain would have most likely lost Missouri, Montana, Georgia, North Dakota, and Alaska along with all the other traditional GOP states he actually did loose. A large portion of the base voted for McCain simply because they found Obama unacceptible. You can't win elections that way no matter how much the VP pleases the base. We presented Americans with no real alternative or clear difference.

There has been a civil war in the GOP. Moderate, neo-Rockefellers like McCain, Collins, Pawlenty, Crist verse conservative grassroots Reaganites like Pence, Cantor, Jindal, Palin, DeMint. The battle for the ideology of the party continues but rest assured, the conservatives are back on the rise. For over a decade the neo-Rockefellers, DC-NY Republican beltwayers, and blueblood country clubbers like the Bushs have controlled the party. They are Democrat-lites. In a sense the GOP had become to the voters in this country the Diet Democratic party. And we let them along with the media define us at every turn instead of taking the bully pulpit. But the base has had enough. The neo-Rockefellers and beltway Republicans got the campign they wanted in 2008. The results are clear. Without our conservative principles we will not and do not deserve to be the majority party.

However, we are rebuilding. The last two elections have cleaned out a great deal of the moderates and finally put both Bush and McCain in the past. We have a clean slate now. I'm very very pleased that Michael Steele is the new chairman of the RNC (he should have been in charge two years ago but better late than never). And though our inter-party war has left us more conservative than we've been in quiet sometime, its also left us as a regional minority party confined to the south, plains, and mountain states. We've been chased back into our own partisan heartland.

But that's also a fine base to build off of. Historically the majority party looses seats in the up coming elections and 2010 presents us with some great oppertunities provided we stick to our principles again. We spent the last 10 years or so largely moving away from our values - less spending, smaller government, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, providing a pro-business enviornment for growth, energy independence, strong national defense, secure borders, pro-life, pro-gun, etc. Our spending was out of control and far too often we would compromise, where the bipartisanship turned out to be Democrats getting most of what they wanted. No more. Parties exist for different philosophies and the Republicans must be the party of small government, free market solutions, and traditional values again. You can't break the pillars of the conservative movement apart (fiscal, social, etc) because they are a united belief. Even if America has moved to the left and the GOP moving right will only make us the minority party confind to a couple regions then so be it. I'd rather have a minority party of principles than sell our souls out for majority power.

Of course I still believe the conservative message resonnates in America. But as a party and a movement we need to come up with new solutions and ideas based on our values to answer the questions facing the country in the here and now. Its something we haven't done in a long time. But with leaders like Chairman Steele, Govenors Palin and Jindal, House members such as Cantor, Beohner, Pence, and Blackburn, and Senators like DeMint, Sessions, Kyl, and Corny I know that we in the grassroots of the conservative movement can get this party going again. Not only that but the cleaning out of the GOP household has opened the door for new, fresh faces to emerge on the national sence. We have a lot of work to do to prepare for 2010 and 2012. But those can be very good years for us because now we are not responsible. Its all on the Democratic party now and they have to govern. With all the problems going on today all I can say is good luck.

Sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan as I always say.

Its been a lot of fun blogging with the majority of you. Take care and may God bless each of you, even if we did not get along. See you in 2010!

Regards,

Andrew

a.k.a. ConservRep

Last Edit: 2009-01-31 @ 17:09:41

By:Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2009-02-01 @ 17:54:49

Hey CR- Its the artist formerly known as Liberalrocks here.

Yeah this is a tough loss especially for former democrats that supported Palin-Mc Cain. I say that because she did as you say energize conservatives who would have otherwise sat it out. She became the face of the ticket as Mc Cain rolled over and wouldnt fight Obama effectively. She was told to stay quiet when she did want to challenge obama on his questionable associations which reflect poorly upon his character (Reverend Wright)

I agree with your opinion about the party not offering an alternative to Obama's plan and the fact that the brand was rancid this year. The same type of campaign happened when Kerry was running against Bush he ran as the anti-bush but did not offer his own platform effectively. Having said that I am a recent convert to the party after this election cycle. I really take issue with the Democratic party who would nominate a man full of empty promises and no real legislative accomplishments. I know when Im being fed a bunch of B.S> empty promisses and talk. The man bought the presidency he outspent both Hillary and Mc Cain.

I also dont agree with many of the Presidents recent actions. We DONT need to be spending billions during a recession. I dont agree with the pork barrel projects this stimulus will support. It all goes back to Obama's answer to Joe in the general election "spread the wealth" in a recession I think that talk is scary and wishful thinking at best. People need help but they dont need socialism. I dont agree with the closing of Gitmo I think its scary. While I believe regulation of practices (ie torture) was needed I dont think we need to harbor terrorist suspects on home soil. STUPID>

I was very encouraged by the election of Chairman Steele I believe he will be very inclusive and will hopefully be able to expand the message and tailor it to different demographics which is so desperately needed.

My choice for 2012 is Sarah Palin all the way. Despite the Gotcha Liberal media hit job she was put threw I believe she can and will rise and stay a powerful important voice for the party in the future. I like that she is a non-elitest and speaks from the "kitchen table" not in a career politician vocabulary.

Palin 2012!

Warm Regards,

Brandon

Aka Liberalrocks

Last Edit: 2009-02-01 @ 18:03:58

By:FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2009-02-03 @ 17:29:35

CR-

It's been a pleasure to talk to you on this forum, proved me wrong in my earlier belief that stupidity was a requisite to be an earnest conservative. That's a mistake I'm now glad to confess. Though we don't agree on much, I definitely enjoyed the debate.

Now, a couple of things on what you said:
-I agree conservative principles are still strong in America. But this year America had had enough. Still, both fiscal and social conservatism are very strong values in most parts of the country, and I can tell you from a European perspective your political rhetoric in general, and that includes President Obama's, is still very conservative. You're a center-right nation, and if I'm the only liberal to believe that then so be it.
So you'll be back one way or another.
-My second point was on the future of your party. I don't have anything against a good set of principles, but one of mine is, be ready to compromise. Don't sell your soul, but don't say no as a kind of knee-jerking either. What I'm afraid of, and I'm saying this in all earnestness, is that the Republican party will, because it has been reduced to its very core -only the most conservative part of the country are now represented by Republicans-, become extreme and exclusive. And by extreme I don't mean, like you or the people you mentioned. I don't mean Steele or people of the sort. I'm afraid it will relish in bigotry as some Republicans have done in the past. I'm afraid it will diss the moderates to such a degree that when the Republicans come back to power, they are so restricted by their own dogma they won't even extend a hand to the other side.
Now there are mixed signals. The election of Steele is a good signal, not that the party will turn Rockefeller, but that the door is still open. Other signals are not so good, especially after Obama negotiated so hard to get that stimulus some GOP votes and still got none. I guess that was purely strategic on their part, but I hope it doesn't get too nasty. You are incredibly lucky in the United States to have independent-minded congresspeople who don't vote like the party says but as their constituents want or as their principles dictate. Split votes show a party is self-tolerant and open. In a way, you need Susan Collins not to win or to lose but to have some healthy debate and openness within your own party. Just like Democrats sometimes need a Mark Warner to bring them to their senses.

I wish you all the best for the years ahead.

Liberalrocks -I guess the only part I agree with in your post was the Kerry being only an anti-Bush, but I wish you all the best as well. Maybe for next time around you can change your nickname to liberals*cks ;-)

Regards to both of you and all other readers, if any.

By:faye3 (R-NV) 2009-02-24 @ 15:33:40

NOw i want to say hi to the consevrepublican cause he sounds like a good man and a good crhistian to and I think hes right that the Republicans are rebuilding and we need a reel republican with good values like sarah Palin. But you dont worry cause i can already tell that Obamas sending this country to hell faster than a fatass at a barbecue. He said the economy was going to get better if he was presdient but its gotten alot worse than it was under George bush who is agood Chrisitan I dont care what that mean German and the abortion docotr say about him. Hes nothgin but another socialist liberal going to turn us communist like Russia.

I was mighty dissapointed in my mr. mccain for not standing up for himself and sArah Palin more durign the election. Taht damn Hillary Clinton got more balls than MccAin turns out. at least she told off Obama like he deserved. McCain was too nice and the rEpbulicans need someone tahts going to stand up to him next time we vote in 2012. I like either Mrs. Sarah cause shes a good christian like me and hunts and dont kill babies. I saw ehr do an interveiew on Fox news and it was really good and she seems really smart. now i also liek the black guy form indiana that is the governor of louisiana now. He seems real smart to and hes a good fiscal conservatiave and hes not going to take the baleout money like the damn liberals are grabbing and snatching from good people like me to give to a bunch of lazy liberals.

I want to tell you that las vegas is hurting real bad under Obama. now the weekends are not htat bad but its dead in vegas druign the week adn you cant blame Bush no more its Obama fault.! Now i dont go for all the sin and vice that goes on but I dont want them damn mexicans and balcks to get free checks in the mail cause then they already got nothign to do but sit aorudn and shoot each other and rob people. Reggie got real nervous when he saw Obama win cause obaama wants to take athe guns away so we wnet out and we got 3 new guns and lots of bullets. He got some high power automaotic rifals but I been practicing my shooting in the back yard and i'm real good at it and i alway aim good. I got me .45 Colt and its real nice and shiney adn gold and it sort of matches my hair and its got ivory trim on it. its a real nice gun too and i carry it with me espeically when i drive the girls around i'm not going to let them damn varmits kill my friends. Reggie even taught me how to duck and roll. duck adn roll if they try to shoot a t you and then you fire back real quick but you gotta aim good or you could hit the neighbors. and I like my neighbors but they got guns like me so they know we are just practicing incase. Reg even said he might take me up hunting with him to Montana this summer so I could fire the big guns but htey are a bit heavy for me but he said hed help me shoot.

It was nice talkig to you andrew, brandon and tiny frenchman. You can call me faye.